Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs

[Branden]

Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> 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.
>

Well, `local' is actually the source of the problem, since `my' was derived
from it and `our' from `my'.

Anyway, I don't see why `local' (and `our' and `my') should bind more
strongly than , and = . They are list operators, they should behave the same
as those.

- Branden