On Friday 16 February 2001 07:36, Branden wrote: > But it surely isn't > consistent with the rest of the language. It's consistent with "our" and "local", which are really the only other things in the language that parallel its use. -- Bryan C. Warnock bwarnock@(gtemail.net|capita.com)
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... abigail
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Simon Cozens
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Nicholas Clark
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for su... Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Randal L. Schwartz