NAME
Synopsis 4 - Blocks and Statements
AUTHOR
Larry Wall <larry@wall.org>
VERSION
Maintainer: Larry Wall <larry@wall.org>
Date: 19 Aug 2004
Last Modified: 29 Aug 2005
Number: 4
Version: 6This document summarizes Apocalypse 4, which covers the block and statement syntax of Perl.
The Relationship of Blocks and Declarations
Every block is a closure. (That is, in the abstract, they're all anonymous subroutines that take a snapshot of their lexical scope.) How any block is invoked and how its results are used is a matter of context, but closures all work the same on the inside.
Blocks are delimited by curlies, or by the beginning and end of the current compilation unit (either the current file or the current eval string). Unlike in Perl 5, there are (by policy) no implicit blocks around standard control structures. (You could write a macro that violates this, but resist the urge.) Variables that mediate between an outer statement and an inner block (such as loop variables) should generally be declared as formal parameters to that block. There are three ways to declare formal parameters to a closure.
$func = sub ($a, $b) { print if $a eq $b }; # standard sub declaration
$func = -> $a, $b { print if $a eq $b }; # a "pointy" sub
$func = { print if $^a eq $^b } # placeholder argumentsA bare closure without placeholder arguments that uses $_ (either explicitly or implicitly) is treated as though $_ were a placeholder argument:
$func = { print if $_ };
$func("printme");In any case, all formal parameters are the equivalent of my variables within the block. See S6 for more on function parameters.
Except for such formal parameter declarations, all lexically scoped declarations are visible from the point of declaration to the end of the enclosing block. Period. Lexicals may not "leak" from a block to any other external scope (at least, not without some explicit aliasing action on the part of the block, such as exportation of a symbol from a module). The "point of declaration" is the moment the compiler sees "my $foo", not the end of the statement as in Perl 5, so
my $x = $x;will no longer see the value of the outer $x; you'll need to say
my $x = $OUTER::x;instead. (It's illegal to declare $x twice in the same scope.)
As in Perl 5, "our $foo" introduces a lexically scoped alias for a variable in the current package.
The new constant declarator introduces a lexically scoped name for a compile-time constant, either a variable or a 0-ary sub, which may be initialized with either a pseudo-assignment or a block:
constant Num $pi = 3;
constant Num PI { 3 }
constant Num π = atan(2,2) * 4;In any case the initializing value is evaluated at BEGIN time.
There is a new state declarator that introduces a lexically scoped variable like my does, but with a lifetime that persists for the life of the closure, so that it keeps its value from the end of one call to the beginning of the next. Separate clones of the closure get separate state variables.
Perl 5's "local" function has been renamed to temp to better reflect what it does. There is also a let function that sets a hypothetical value. It works exactly like temp, except that the value will be restored only if the current block exits unsuccessfully. (See Definition of Success below for more.) temp and let temporize or hypotheticalize the value or the variable depending on whether you do assignment or binding.
Conditional statements
The if and unless statements work almost exactly as they do in Perl 5, except that you may omit the parentheses on the conditional:
if $foo == 123 {
...
}
elsif $foo == 321 {
...
}
else {
...
}Conditional statement modifiers also work as in Perl 5. So do the implicit conditionals implied by short-circuit operators. And there's a new elsunless in Perl 6--except that you have to spell it elsif not. :-)
Loop statements
The while and until statements work as in Perl 5, except that you may leave out the parentheses around the conditional:
while $bar < 100 {
...
}Looping statement modifiers are the same as in Perl 5, except that to avoid confusion applying one to a do block is specifically disallowed. Instead of
do {
...
} while $x;you should write
loop {
...
} while $x;Loop modifiers next, last, and redo work as in Perl 5.
There is no longer a continue block. Instead, use a NEXT block within the loop. See below.
The general loop statement
The loop statement is the C-style for loop in disguise:
loop ($i = 0; $i < 10; $i++) {
...
}As seen in the previous section, the 3-part loop spec may be entirely omitted to write an infinite loop. If you omit the 3-part loop spec you may add a while or until statement modifier at the end to make it a "repeat at least once" loop. Unlike do in Perl 5, it's a real loop block, so you may use loop modifiers.
The for statement
There is no foreach statement any more. It's always spelled for in Perl 6, so it always takes a list as an argument:
for @foo { print }As mentioned earlier, the loop variable is named by passing a parameter to the closure:
for @foo -> $item { print $item }Multiple parameters may be passed, in which case the list is traversed more than one element at a time:
for %hash.kv -> $key, $value { print "$key => $value\n" }To process two arrays in parallel, use either the zip function:
for zip(@a;@b) -> $a, $b { print "[$a, $b]\n" }or the "zipper" operator to interleave them:
for @a ¥ @b ¥ @c -> $a, $b, $c { print "[$a, $b, $c]\n" }That's equivalent to
for zip(@a;@b;@c) -> $a, $b, $c { print "[$a, $b, $c]\n" }The list is evaluated lazily by default, so instead of using a while to read a file a line at a time:
while my $line = <$*IN> {...}you should use a for instead:
for =$*IN -> $line {...}This has the added benefit of limiting the scope of the $line parameter to the block it's bound to. (The while's declaration of $line continues to be visible past the end of the block. Remember, no implicit block scopes.) It is also possible to write
while =$*IN -> $line {...}Note also that Perl 5's special rule causing
while (<>) {...}to automatically assign to $_ is not carried over to Perl 6. That should now be written:
for =<> {...}which is short for
for =$*ARGS {...}Parameters are by default readonly within the block. You can declare a parameter read/write by including the "is rw" trait. If you rely on $_ as the implicit parameter to a block, then $_ is considered read/write by default. That is, the construct:
for @foo {...}is actually short for:
for @foo -> $_ is rw {...}so you can modify the current list element in that case. However, any time you specify the arguments, they default to read only.
When used as statement modifers, for and given use a private instance of $_ for the left side of the statement. The outer $_ can be referred to as $OUTER::_. (And yes, this implies that the compiler may have to retroactively change the binding of <$_> on the left side. But it's what people expect of a pronoun like "it".)
The do-once loop
In Perl 5, a bare block is deemed to be a do-once loop. In Perl 6, the bare block is not a do-once. Instead do {...} is the do-once loop (which is another reason you can't put a while or until modifier on it).
For any statement, prefixing with a do allows you to return the value of that statement and use it in an expression:
$x = do if $a { $b } else { $c };This construct only allows you to prefix a statement. If you want to continue the expression after the statement you must use the curly form.
Since do is defined as going in front of a statement, it follows that it can always be followed by a statment label. This is particularly useful for the do-once block, since it is offically a loop and can take therefore loop control statements.
Switch statements
A switch statement is a means of topicalizing, so the switch keyword is the English topicalizer, given. The keyword for individual cases is when:
given EXPR {
when EXPR { ... }
when EXPR { ... }
default { ... }
}The current topic is always aliased to the special variable $_. The given block is just one way to set the current topic, but a switch statement can be any block that sets $_, including a for loop (in which the first loop parameter is the topic) or the body of a method (if you have declared the invocant as $_). So switching behavior is actually caused by the when statements in the block, not by the nature of the block itself. A when statement implicitly does a "smart match" between the current topic ($_) and the argument of the when. If the smart match succeeds, the associated closure is executed, and the surrounding block is automatically broken out of. If the smart match fails, control passes to the next statement normally, which may or may not be a when statement. Since when statements are presumed to be executed in order like normal statements, it's not required that all the statements in a switch block be when statements (though it helps the optimizer to have a sequence of contiguous when statements, because then it can arrange to jump directly to the first appropriate test that might possibly match.)
The default case:
default {...}is exactly equivalent to
when true {...}Because when statements are executed in order, the default must come last. You don't have to use an explicit default--you can just fall off the last when into ordinary code. But use of a default block is good documentation.
If you use a for loop with a named parameter, the parameter is also aliased to $_ so that it can function as the topic of any when statements within the loop. If you use a for statement with multiple parameters, only the first parameter is aliased to $_ as the topic.
You can explicitly break out of a when block (and its surrounding switch) early using the break verb. You can explicitly break out of a when block and go to the next statement by using continue. (Note that, unlike C's idea of falling through, subsequent when conditions are evaluated. To jump into the next when block you must use a goto.)
If you have a switch that is the main block of a for loop, and you break out of the switch either implicitly or explicitly, it merely goes to the next iteration of the loop. You must use last to break out of the entire loop early. Of course, an explicit next would be clearer than a break if you really want to go to the next iteration. Possibly we'll outlaw break in a loop topicalizer.
Exception handlers
Unlike many other languages, Perl 6 specifies exception handlers by placing a CATCH block within that block that is having its exceptions handled.
The Perl 6 equivalent to Perl 5's eval {...} is try {...}. (Perl 6's eval function only evaluates strings, not blocks.) A try block by default has a CATCH block that handles all exceptions by ignoring them. If you define a CATCH block within the try, it replaces the default CATCH. It also makes the try keyword redundant, because any block can function as a try block if you put a CATCH block within it.
An exception handler is just a switch statement on an implicit topic supplied within the CATCH block. That implicit topic is the current exception object, also known as $!. Inside the CATCH block, it's also bound to $_, since it's the topic. Because of smart matching, ordinary when statements are sufficiently powerful to pattern match the current exception against classes or patterns or numbers without any special syntax for exception handlers. If none of the cases in the CATCH handles the exception, the exception is rethrown. To ignore all unhandled exceptions, use an empty default case. (In other words, there is an implicit die $! just inside the end of the CATCH block. Handled exceptions break out past this implicit rethrow.)
Control Exceptions
All abnormal control flow is, in the general case, handled by the exception mechanism (which is likely to be optimized away in specific cases.) Here "abnormal" means any transfer of control outward that is not just falling off the end of a block. A return, for example, is considered a form of abnormal control flow, since it can jump out of multiple levels of closure to the end of the scope of the current subroutine definition. Loop commands like next are abnormal, but looping because you hit the end of the block is not. The implicit break of a when block is abnormal.
A CATCH block handles only "bad" exceptions, and lets control exceptions pass unhindered. Control exceptions may be caught with a CONTROL block. Generally you don't need to worry about this unless you're defining a control construct. You may have one CATCH block and one CONTROL block, since some user-defined constructs may wish to supply an implicit CONTROL block to your closure, but let you define your own CATCH block.
A return always exits from the lexically surrounding sub or method definition (that is, from a function officially declared with the sub, method, or submethod keywords). Pointy subs and bare closures are transparent to return. If you pass a reference to a closure outside of its official "sub" scope, it is illegal to return from it. You may only leave the closure block itself with leave or by falling of the end of it.
To return a value from a pointy sub or bare closure, you either just let the block return the value of its final expression, or you can use leave. A leave by default exits from the innermost block. But you may change the behavior of leave with selector adverbs:
leave :from(Loop) :label<LINE> <== 1,2,3; # XXX "with"?The innermost block matching the selection criteria will be exited. The return value, if any, must be passed as a list. To return pairs as part of the value, you can use a pipe:
leave <== :foo:bar:baz(1) if $leaving;or going the other way::
$leaving and :foo:bar:baz(1) ==> leave;In theory, any user-defined control construct can catch any control exception it likes. However, there have to be some culturally enforced standards on which constructs capture which exceptions. Much like return may only return from an "official" subroutine or method, a loop exit like next should be caught by the construct the user expects it to be caught by. In particular, if the user labels a loop with a specific label, and calls a loop control from within the lexical scope of that loop, and if that call mentions the outer loop's label, then that outer loop is the one that must be controlled. (This search of lexical scopes is limited to the current "official" subroutine.) If there is no such lexically scoped outer loop in current subroutine. then a fallback search is made outward through the dynamic scopes in the same way Perl 5 does. (The difference between Perl 5 and Perl 6 in this respect arises only because Perl 5 didn't have user-defined control structures, hence the sub's lexical scope was always the innermost dynamic scope, so the preference to the lexical scope in the current sub was implicit. For Perl 6 we have to make this preference explicit.)
Exceptions
As in Perl 5, many built-in functions simply return undef when you ask for a value out of range, or the function fails somehow. Unlike in Perl 5, these may be "interesting" values of undef that contain information about the error. If you try to use an undefined value, that information can then be conveyed to the user. In essence, undef can be an unthrown exception object that just happens to return 0 when you ask it whether it's defined or it's true. Since $! contains the current error code, saying die $! will turn an unthrown exception into a thrown exception. (A bare die does the same.)
You can cause built-ins to automatically throw exceptions on failure using
use fatal;The fail function responds to the caller's "use fatal" state. It either returns an unthrown exception, or throws the exception.
If an exception is raised while $! already contains an exception that is active and "unhandled", no information is discarded. The old exception is pushed onto the exception stack within the new exception, which is then bound to $! and, hopefully, propagated. The default printout for the new exception should include the old exception information so that the user can trace back to the original error. (Likewise, rethrown exceptions add information about how the exception is propagated.)
Exception objects are born "unhandled". The $! object keeps track of whether it's currently "handled" or "unhandled". The exception in $! still exists after it has been caught, but catching it marks it as handled if any of the cases in the switch matched. Handled exceptions don't require their information to be preserved if another exception occurs.
Closure traits
A CATCH block is just a trait of the closure containing it. Other blocks can be installed as traits as well. These other blocks are called at various times, and some of them respond to various control exceptions and exit values:
BEGIN {...}* at compile time, ASAP
CHECK {...}* at compile time, ALAP
INIT {...}* at run time, ASAP
END {...} at run time, ALAP
FIRST {...}* at first block entry time
ENTER {...}* at every block entry time
LEAVE {...} at every block exit time
KEEP {...} at every successful block exit
UNDO {...} at every unsuccessful block exit
NEXT {...} at loop continuation time
LAST {...} at loop termination time
PRE {...} assert precondition at every block entry
POST {...} assert postcondition at every block exit
CATCH {...} catch exceptions
CONTROL {...} catch control exceptionsThose marked with a * can also be used within an expression:
my $compiletime = BEGIN { localtime };
our $temphandle = FIRST { maketemp() };Some of these also have corresponding traits that can be set on variables. These have the advantage of passing the variable in question into the closure as its topic:
my $r will first { .set_random_seed() };
our $h will enter { .rememberit() } will undo { .forgetit() };Apart from CATCH and CONTROL, which can only occur once, most of these can occur multiple times within the block. So they aren't really traits, exactly--they actually add themselves onto a list stored in the actual trait. So if you examine the ENTER trait of a block, you'll find that it's really a list of closures rather than a single closure.
The semantics of INIT and FIRST are not equivalent to each other in the case of cloned closures. An INIT only runs once for all copies of a cloned closure. A FIRST runs separately for each clone, so separate clones can keep separate state variables:
our $i = 0;
...
$func = { state $x will first{$i++}; dostuff($i) };But state automatically applies "first" semantics to any initializer, so this also works:
$func = { state $x = $i++; dostuff($i) }Each subsequent clone gets an initial state that is one higher than the previous, and each clone maintains its own state of $x, because that's what state variables do.
All of these trait blocks can see any previously declared lexical variables, even if those variables have not been elaborated yet when the closure is invoked. (In which case the variables evaluate to an undefined value.)
Note: Apocalypse 4 confused the notions of PRE/POST with ENTER/LEAVE. These are now separate notions. ENTER and LEAVE are used only for their side effects. PRE and POST must return boolean values that are evaluated according to the usual Design by Contract rules. (Plus, if you use ENTER/LEAVE in a class block, they only execute when the class block is executed, but PRE/POST in a class block are evaluated around every method in the class.)
LEAVE blocks are evaluated after CATCH and CONTROL blocks, including the LEAVE variants, KEEP and UNDO. POST blocks are evaluated after everything else, to guarantee that even LEAVE blocks can't violate DBC. Likewise PRE blocks fire off before any ENTER or FIRST (though not before BEGIN, CHECK, or INIT, since those are done at compile or process initialization time).
Statement parsing
In this statement:
given EXPR {
when EXPR { ... }
when EXPR { ... }
...
}parentheses aren't necessary around EXPR because the whitespace between EXPR and the block forces the block to be considered a block rather than a subscript. This works for all control structures, not just the new ones in Perl 6. A bare block where an operator is expected is always considered a statement block if there's space before it:
if $foo { ... }
elsif $bar { ... }
else { ... }
while $more { ... }
for 1..10 { ... }(You can still parenthesize the expression argument for old times' sake, as long as there's a space between the closing paren and the opening brace.)
On the other hand, anywhere a term is expected, a block is taken to be a closure definition (an anonymous subroutine). If the closure appears to delimit nothing but a comma-separated list starting with a pair (counting a single pair as a list of one element), the closure will be immediately executed as a hash composer.
$hashref = { "a" => 1 };
$hashref = { "a" => 1, $b, $c, %stuff, @nonsense };
$coderef = { "a", 1 };
$coderef = { "a" => 1, $b, $c ==> print };If you wish to be less ambiguous, the hash list operator will explicitly evaluate a list and compose a hash of the returned value, while sub introduces an anonymous subroutine:
$coderef = sub { "a" => 1 };
$hashref = hash("a" => 1);
$hashref = hash("a", 1);If a closure is the right argument of the dot operator, the closure is interpreted as a hash subscript, even if there is space before the dot.
$ref = {$x}; # closure because term expected
if $term{$x} # subscript because operator expected
if $term {$x} # expression followed by statement block
if $term .{$x} # valid subscript (term expected after dot)Similar rules apply to array subscripts:
$ref = [$x]; # array composer because term expected
if $term[$x] # subscript because operator expected
if $term [$x] # syntax error (two terms in a row)
if $term .[$x] # valid subscript (term expected after dot)And to the parentheses delimiting function arguments:
$ref = ($x); # grouping parens because term expected
if $term($x) # function call because operator expected
if $term ($x) # syntax error (two terms in a row)
if $term .($x) # valid function call (term expected after dot)Outside of any kind of expression brackets, a trailing curly on a line by itself (not counting whitespace or comments) always reverts to the precedence of semicolon whether or not you put a semicolon after it. (In the absence of an explicit semicolon, the current statement may continue on a subsequent line, but only with valid statement continuators such as else. A modifier on a loop statement must continue on the same line, however.)
Final blocks on statement-level constructs always imply semicolon precedence afterwards regardless of the position of the closing curly. Statement-level constructs are distinguished in the grammar by being declared in the statement syntactic group:
macro statement_control:<if> ($expr, &ifblock) {...}
macro statement_control:<while> ($expr, &whileblock) {...}
macro statement_control:<BEGIN> (&beginblock) {...}It's possible the full name of the if operator is now:
statement_control:<if elsif else>Statement-level constructs may start only where the parser is expecting the start of a statement. To embed a statement in an expression you must use something like do {...} or try {...}.
$x = do { given $foo { when 1 {2} when 3 {4} } + $bar;
$x = try { given $foo { when 1 {2} when 3 {4} } + $bar;Just because there's a statement_control:<BEGIN> does not preclude us from also defining a prefix:<BEGIN> that can be used within an expression:
macro prefix:<BEGIN> (&beginblock) { beginblock().repr }Then you can say things like:
$recompile_by = BEGIN { time } + $expiration_time;But statement_control:<BEGIN> hides prefix:<BEGIN> at the start of a statement. You could also conceivably define a prefix:<if>, but then you would get a syntax error when you say:
print if $foosince prefix:<if>> > would hide statement_modifier:<if>.
Smart matching
Here is the current table of smart matches (which probably belongs in S3). The list is intended to reflect forms that can be recognized at compile time. If none of these forms is recognized at compile time, it falls through to do MMD to infix:<~~>(), which presumably reflects similar semantics, but can finesse things that aren't exact type matches. Note that all types are scalarized here. Both ~~ and given/when provide scalar contexts to their arguments. (You can always hyperize ~~ explicitly, though.) So both $_ and $x here are potentially references to container objects. And since lists promote to arrays in scalar context, there need be no separate entries for lists.
$_ $x Type of Match Implied Matching Code
====== ===== ===================== =============
Any Code<$> scalar sub truth match if $x($_)
Hash Hash hash keys identical match if $_.keys.sort »eq« $x.keys.sort
Hash any(Hash) hash key intersection match if $_{any(Hash.keys)}
Hash Array hash value slice truth match if $_{any(@$x)}
Hash any(list) hash key slice existence match if exists $_{any(list)}
Hash all(list) hash key slice existence match if exists $_{all(list)}
Hash Rule hash key grep match if any($_.keys) ~~ /$x/
Hash Any hash entry existence match if exists $_{$x}
Hash .{Any} hash element truth* match if $_{Any}
Hash .<string> hash element truth* match if $_<string>
Array Array arrays are identical match if $_ »~~« $x
Array any(list) list intersection match if any(@$_) ~~ any(list)
Array Rule array grep match if any(@$_) ~~ /$x/
Array Num array contains number match if any($_) == $x
Array Str array contains string match if any($_) eq $x
Array .[number] array element truth* match if $_[number]
Num NumRange in numeric range match if $min <= $_ <= $max
Str StrRange in string range match if $min le $_ le $max
Any Code<> simple closure truth* match if $x() (ignoring $_)
Any Class class membership match if $_.does($x)
Any Role role playing match if $_.does($x)
Any Num numeric equality match if $_ == $x
Any Str string equality match if $_ eq $x
Any .method method truth* match if $_.method
Any Rule pattern match match if $_ ~~ /$x/
Any subst substitution match* match if $_ ~~ subst
Any boolean simple expression truth* match if true given $_
Any undef undefined match unless defined $_
Any Any run-time dispatch match if infix:<~~>($_, $x)Matches marked with * are non-reversible, typically because ~~ takes its left side as the topic for the right side, and sets the topic to a private instance of $_ for its right side, so $_ means something different on either side. Such non-reversible constructs can be made reversible by putting the leading term into a closure to defer the binding of $_. For example:
$x ~~ .does(Storeable) # okay
.does(Storeable) ~~ $x # not okay--gets wrong $_ on left
{ .does(Storeable) } ~~ $x # okay--closure binds its $_ to $xExactly the same consideration applies to given and when:
given $x { when .does(Storeable) {...} } # okay
given .does(Storeable) { when $x {...} } # not okay
given { .does(Storeable) } { when $x {...} } # okayBoolean expressions are those known to return a boolean value, such as comparisons, or the unary ? operator. They may reference $_ explicitly or implicitly. If they don't reference $_ at all, that's okay too--in that case you're just using the switch structure as a more readable alternative to a string of elsifs.
The primary use of the ~~ operator is to return a boolean value in a boolean context. However, for certain operands such as regular expressions, use of the operator within scalar or list context transfers the context to that operand, so that, for instance, a regular expression can return a list of matched substrings, as in Perl 5. The complete list of such operands is TBD.
It has not yet been determined if run-time dispatch of ~~ will attempt to emulate the compile-time precedence table before reverting to MMD, or just go directly to MMD. There are good arguments for both sides, and we can decide when we see more examples of how it'll work out.
Definition of Success
Hypothetical variables are somewhat transactional--they keep their new values only on successful exit of the current block, and otherwise are rolled back to their original value.
It is, of course, a failure to leave the block by propagating an error exception, though returning a defined value after catching an exception is okay.
In the absence of exception propagation, a successful exit is one that returns a defined value in scalar context, or any number of values in list context as long as the length is defined. (A length of +Inf is considered a defined length. A length of 0 is also a defined length, which means it's a "successful" return even though the list would evaluate to false in a boolean context.) A list can have a defined length even if it contains undefined scalar values. A list is of undefined length only if it contains an undefined generator, which, happily, is what is returned by the undef function when used in list context. So any Perl 6 function can say
return undef;and not care about whether the function is being called in scalar or list context. To return an explicit scalar undef, you can always say
return scalar(undef);Then in list context, you're returning a list of length 1, which is defined (much like in Perl 5). But generally you should be using fail in such a case to return an exception object. Exception objects also behave like undefined generators in list context. In any case, returning an unthrown exception is considered failure from the standpoint of let. Backtracking over a closure in a rule is also considered failure of the closure, which is how hypothetical variables are managed by rules. (And on the flip side, use of fail within a rule closure initiates backtracking of the rule.)
When is a closure not a closure
Everything is conceptually a closure in Perl 6, but the optimizer is free to turn unreferenced closures into mere blocks of code. It is also free to turn referenced closures into mere anonymous subroutines if the block does not refer to any external lexicals that could themselves be cloned. In particular, named subroutines in any scope do not consider themselves closures unless you take a reference to them. So
sub foo {
my $x = 1;
my sub bar { print $x } # not cloned yet
my &baz = { bar(); print $x }; # cloned immediately
my $barref = &bar; # now bar is cloned
return &baz;
}When we say "clone", we mean the way the system takes a snapshot of the routine's lexical scope and binds it to the current instance of the routine so that if you ever use the current reference to the routine, it gets the current snapshot of its world, lexically speaking.
Some closures produce references at compile time that cannot be cloned, because they're not attached to any runtime code that can actively clone them. BEGIN, CHECK, INIT, and END blocks probably fall into this category. Therefore you can't reliably refer to run-time variables from them even if they appear to be in scope. (The compile-time closure may, in fact, see a some kind of permanent copy of the variable for some storage classes, but the variable is likely to be undefined when the closure is run in any case.) It's only safe to refer to package variables and file-scoped lexicals from such a routine.
On the other hand, it is required that CATCH and LEAVE blocks be able to see transient variables in their current lexical scope, so their cloning status depends at least on the cloning status of the block they're in.
1 POD Error
The following errors were encountered while parsing the POD:
- Around line 635:
Unterminated C< ... > sequence