>  Piers Cawley said:
>  in other words, some way of declaring that a subroutine wants to hang onto
>  every lexical it can see in its lexical stack, not matter what static analysis
>  may say.

I'm not arguing with the idea, in general. I just want to point out
that this implies that you're going to hold onto every single
file-scoped lexical, leading to quite a bit of action-at-a-distance.

Maybe, instead, you should say "sub is lexical_stack(N)" where N is
the number of scoping levels it will hold onto in addition to any
lexical it actually refers to. I would have 0 be the innermost scope,
1 be the enclosing scope, etc.

Rob