On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 08:40:49AM +0200 Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> tassilo.parseval@post.rwth-aachen.de (via RT) wrote:
> > According to my knowledge, @- and @+ should be dynamically scoped so it's
> > obvious that they still have their values in Tie::Prematch::FETCH() when doing 
> > 
> >     $foo =~ s/.ob/tied(%pre)->FETCH($foo)/e;
> > 
> > But they somehow loose them when doing
> > 
> >     $foo =~ s/.ob/$pre{ $foo }/;
> > 
> > even though it should be functionally identical.
> 
> No, the /e creates a scope. Add a /e to your 2nd example and it becomes
> equivalent to the 1st one (apparently).

I don't understand this. Why do I need this additional scope in the
second case? In which scope is FETCH() called without the /e? Since
the values of these dynamically scoped variables aren't accessible in
it, it must be a scope above the one from the whole substitution (or
rather: above the scope where @- and @+ are set). Or am I wrong here?

And secondly, why don't I need the /e when I use %- (for instance) as
the tied hash?

Adding an /e, if I may say that, is also highly strange. The right-hand
side of a substition is in double-quotish context. But:

    $a{a} = "foo";
    $s = "foo";

    # these two will give the same results
    $s =~ s/./$a{a}/e
    $s =~ s/./$a{a}/;
    
    print $s;

This is not something that would become obvious when reading about /e in
perlop.pod.

Tassilo
-- 
$_=q#",}])!JAPH!qq(tsuJ[{@"tnirp}3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$-3(rellac(=_$({
pam{rekcahbus})(rekcah{lrePbus})(lreP{rehtonabus})!JAPH!qq(rehtona{tsuJbus#;
$_=reverse,s+(?<=sub).+q#q!'"qq.\t$&."'!#+sexisexiixesixeseg;y~\n~~dddd;eval