Re: Nested functions should be exempt from sequential visibility rules

[Don Clugston]

On 03/04/12 13:35, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 04/03/2012 01:08 PM, Don Clugston wrote:

Y b() { ... }
Y y = b();
X x = ...

Prove that y doesn't depend on x.

Since only function declarations are immune to ordering rules, b cannot
forward reference x.

But there could be another function a() which is below x, and which b() 
calls.