[EDITED]
--- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Matt Benson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So that instead of declaring which properties do
> NOT
> > remain, we declare which properties DO remain.
>
> What would be the gain? How would this simplify
> things?
>
> Less pollution of the global property name space? I
Yes, that...
> wouldn't expect
> people to use any let/scope/whatever container
> unless they really
> wanted local properties - but that doesn't mean they
> want all their
> properties to be local. I'm not sure which behavior
> would be more
> common and thus should be the default.
>
> Any other benefits?
>
Perhaps this is my literal-minded nitpicky-ness coming
out; the behavior I suggest just seems to
more-accurately depict the nature of a conceptual
"scope". It also aligns with the way variable scopes
work in Java, for example.
> Stefan
-Matt
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
