-Access to lexicals that change over type--like those in the C<for> loop
-above--only works with closures, not general subroutines. In the general
-case, then, named subroutines do not nest properly, although anonymous
-ones do. If you are accustomed to using nested subroutines in other
-programming languages with their own private variables, you'll have to
-work at it a bit in Perl. The intuitive coding of this type of thing
-incurs mysterious warnings about ``will not stay shared''. For example,
-this won't work:
+Access to lexicals that change over time--like those in the C<for> loop
+above, basically aliases to elements from the surrounding lexical scopes--
+only works with anonymous subs, not with named subroutines. Generally
+said, named subroutines do not nest properly and should only be declared
+in the main package scope.
+
+This is because named subroutines are created at compile time so their
+lexical variables get assigned to the parent lexicals from the first
+execution of the parent block. If a parent scope is entered a second
+time, its lexicals are created again, while the nested subs still
+reference the old ones.
+
+Anonymous subroutines get to capture each time you execute the C<sub>
+operator, as they are created on the fly. If you are accustomed to using
+nested subroutines in other programming languages with their own private
+variables, you'll have to work at it a bit in Perl. The intuitive coding
+of this type of thing incurs mysterious warnings about "will not stay
+shared" due to the reasons explained above.
+For example, this won't work: