Tom Christiansen wrote: > > >Well, "var" is pretty short. And perhaps globals could be declared > >with something like "var global". Extra verbosity required for globals > >might be A Good Thing. > > But "var" is redundant: that's what the $ is for. They're not semantically identical. "var" would be a declaration. And yes, maybe we can dispense with $. (But that's for another RFC.) -- John Porter
- Re: RFC: lexical variables made ... Johan Vromans
- Re: RFC: lexical variables m... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC: lexical variables m... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC: lexical variables made default (revi... J. David Blackstone
- Re: RFC: lexical variables made default (revi... Nick Ing-Simmons
- RE: RFC: lexical variables made default Ala Qumsieh
- Re: RFC: lexical variables made default John Porter
- Re: RFC: lexical variables made default Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC: lexical variables made default John Porter
- Re: RFC: lexical variables made defau... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC: lexical variables made ... John Porter
- Re: RFC: lexical variables made defau... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC: lexical variables made ... John Porter
- Re: RFC: lexical variables made defau... skud
- Re: RFC: lexical variables made ... John Porter
- Re: RFC: lexical variables m... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC: lexical variables m... John Porter
- Re: RFC: lexical variables m... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC: lexical variables m... Simon Cozens
- Re: RFC: lexical variables m... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC: lexical variables m... Tom Christiansen