I think , ( on the second reading of your post ) , that your proposal of "my $x is yours" is logically very similar to my proposal of "our $x is shared" but your proposal is cleaner if I understand it as follows ( although I like more "shared" instead of "yours" for that purpose ) : instead of aliasing the lexical variable variable $x to the variable of the same name in the *current package* is yours *create* a new (secret) symbol-table that is remembered by compiler to be associated with variable $x and *aliases* $x to the variable of the same name in that (secret) symbol-table . *Any* other instances of "$x is yours" *alias* $x to *the same* variable $x in that (same) secret symbol-table.
I do understand that strictly speaking you proposal is *very* different -- since you want only those function that will *ever* call each other ( not necessarily directly ) to share ( by default ) some variable -- so you propose dynamic (???) sharing . I propose *static* sharing -- but in practice they are *the same* -- the only difference is that I may happen to make two functions that *never* call each other ( or never happen to be in the same dynamic scope ) to share the same variable . But I am in controll of this ( If I am carefull lI will not do it -- and share variables only between those functions that it makes sence to share between ). my point is that static sharing is simpler to understand ( to me ) and it is a simpler concept -- just some "mailbox" variable that "hangs" somewere above the "battlefield" that only several people can access . dynamic sharing is like a *red* message that have to be passed ( secretly ) every time a soldier have it happens to *meet* another soldier that know that it have to receive *red* message. and I am not talking about implementation . arcadi
