On 06/10/2006, at 8:04 am, Axel Liljencrantz wrote: > The 'local' and 'global' names are used in so many > other languages that it is very probable that most fish users will be > familiar with the terms. Or am I wrong here?
You know, I think you MIGHT be wrong. Or rather, I'm sure you're right, but the effect might not be what you want. Hm, that was pretty unclear, wasn't it? Let me try again. Programmers familiar with lots of other languages (e.g., me) will instantly THINK they know what "local" and "global" mean. But they won't be used to a context in which it's possible for one instance of a program can set values in other instances. Imagine the panic if a C program could set variables in all other running C programs! Consequently, in other languages "global" means "completely global (or, at least, as global as one could reasonably wish)". But in fish it doesn't. This doesn't, in itself, mean that there's anything wrong with the existing names. (For my opinions on that, see my previous messages.) But it does mean that the APPARENT familiarity of "global" is actually potentially misleading. Jason ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Fish-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users
