Similar or identical? what would be the difference, if similar?

{
    our $foo = "bar";
    my $quux = "foo";
}
print "'$quux'\n";
print "'$foo'\n";
__END__
''
'bar'
[download]

our and my behave pretty different here, which is why I said "file scoped", which may be wrong. The "syntactical range" of my and our are identical in so far as my variables also are visible within their scope throughout different packages (which scope is different to that of our variables).

our creates a package global, which is visible througout the entire file, even crossing packages. So file or lexical scope is pretty much the same. If "file scoped" means "only visible in that file", then no, our is not file scoped.

Sorry for any confusion caused.

--shmem

_($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo.  G°\        /
                              /\_¯/(q    /
----------------------------  \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."·
");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}

No, that snippet is not strict-safe.

our allows you to refer to somebody's package global in unqualified manner, even when you leave the package. But this permission lasts only within lexical scope.

use strict;
package First;

our $foo = 42;

{
   print $foo; # 42

   package Second;

   print $foo; # 42, refers to $First::foo

   our $bar = 54;

   {
       package Third;
       print $foo;  # 42, refers to $First::foo
       print $bar;  # 54, refers to $Second::bar
   }
}

print $Second::bar; # 54, fully qualified.
print $bar;         # error: not strict-safe as the our is not in scop
+e.
[download]

.oO(and the monk was enlightened.)

Wonderful. Thanks for showing how our is lexical scoped.

--shmem

_($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo.  G°\        /
                              /\_¯/(q    /
----------------------------  \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."·
");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}