On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:40:53PM -0300, Branden wrote:
> I propose the introduction of two new keywords (just like `my' and `our')
> for specifying a different scope: `global' and `outer'. `global' would be
> used to say that a specific variable or a list of them would refer to the
> global variables with those names in the current package.
What are "global variables"? Do you mean those that have file scope?
> Variables accessed with their explicit full packagenames would be the global
> variables.
Wait, I thought we were talking about lexicals, not dynamics.
> Actually, what I'm proposing is quite very different than `upvar'. `upvar'
> is a dynamic thing, it accesses a variable in the scope of the caller.
> `outer' is a lexical thing, it tells the compiler that that variable name is
> accessing the same variable that the definer was accessing.
I'm confused.
> Consider also I'm not wanting you to use it, or like it whatsoever. I only
> think it would probably be useful for some of us, and that only adding a new
> `scope' pragma wouldn't hurt anybody, while possibly helping some.
Perhaps. Except that you also propose to burden the language with two
new keywords.
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
