Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:40:53PM -0300, Branden wrote:
> > I propose the introduction of two new keywords (just like `my' and
`our')
> > for specifying a different scope: `global' and `outer'. `global' would
be
> > used to say that a specific variable or a list of them would refer to
the
> > global variables with those names in the current package.
>
> What are "global variables"? Do you mean those that have file scope?
>
Sorry... dynamics. These are the ones that are in a package namespace.
> > Variables accessed with their explicit full packagenames would be the
global
> > variables.
>
> Wait, I thought we were talking about lexicals, not dynamics.
>
Again package vars.
> > Actually, what I'm proposing is quite very different than `upvar'.
`upvar'
> > is a dynamic thing, it accesses a variable in the scope of the caller.
> > `outer' is a lexical thing, it tells the compiler that that variable
name is
> > accessing the same variable that the definer was accessing.
>
> I'm confused.
>
> > Consider also I'm not wanting you to use it, or like it whatsoever. I
only
> > think it would probably be useful for some of us, and that only adding a
new
> > `scope' pragma wouldn't hurt anybody, while possibly helping some.
>
> Perhaps. Except that you also propose to burden the language with two
> new keywords.
>
Only if `use scope' is used, otherwise, the keywords would have no meaning.
- Branden
> -Scott
> --
> Jonathan Scott Duff
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
