I said: > 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. > Actually, they *look like* list operators, they should behave like those. > - Branden > >
- 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