我们的:
our $ref = "test";
my $var = "ref";
print "$$var"; #the output will be test
我的:
my $ref = "test";
my $var = "ref";
print "$$var\n"; #the output is blank
我们的:
our $ref = "test";
my $var = "ref";
print "$$var"; #the output will be test
我的:
my $ref = "test";
my $var = "ref";
print "$$var\n"; #the output is blank
The difference is that our
will set up a package variable, while my
sets up a lexical variable.
What that means is that variables declared with our
can be accessed outside of the current scope.
use strict;
use warnings;
{
our $g = 5;
}
{
print our($g), "\n";
}
5
While lexical variables exist only in a given scope.
{
# stored in this block
my $l = 5;
{
# accessible from this block
print $l, "\n";
$l = 6;
# new variable stored in this lower block
my $l = 7;
}
print $l, "\n";
}
{
# yet another new variable
print my($l), "\n";
}
5
6
Use of uninitialized value $a in print at -e line 1.
When you were trying to access $$var
you were using a symbolic reference; which only work on package/global variables:
our $g = 5;
my $symbolic_ref = 'g';
{
no strict 'refs';
# these are symbolic refs
print $$symbolic_ref, "\n";
print ${ *{$symbolic_ref} }, "\n";
print ${ *{$symbolic_ref}{SCALAR} }, "\n";
}
# access it through the magic %:: variable
print ${ $::{$symbolic_ref} }, "\n";
print ${ $main::{$symbolic_ref} }, "\n";
5
5
5
5
5
That is opposed to regular references.
my $v = 5;
my $ref = \$v;
print $$ref, "\n";
print ${ $ref }, "\n";
5
5
There is rarely any reason to use a symbolic reference.