On Friday 16 February 2001 07:36, Branden wrote: > But it surely isn't > consistent with the rest of the language. It's consistent with "our" and "local", which are really the only other things in the language that parallel its use. -- Bryan C. Warnock bwarnock@(gtemail.net|capita.com)
- 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
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Peter Scott
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs John Porter