> >So... what was the rationale against it? > > Best read the archives... I am the wrong person to ask for a statement of > the opposing viewpoint... hey... I'm a lazy guy.. ;-) So - I guess coming from someone who holds the opposing viewpoint, what was it? Ed
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs abigail
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs abigail
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Nicholas Clark
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Peter Scott
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Nathan Wiger
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Peter Scott
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs abigail
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Nicholas Clark
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs abigail
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs abigail
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden