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
- 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
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Peter Scott