At 08:59 PM 9/4/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote: >Yes, this is akin to redeclaring every lexical variable every time you >introduce a new scope. Not pretty, I know. But if you want run-time >semantics with compile-time resolution.... That is exactly what it is, alas. If we allow lexicals to get injected in, we need to either do this (Basically having every non-package variable getting an entry in the scope's pad) or search backward. I don't much like either option, but I think this is the best of the lot. So much for the "Extra braces don't carry any runtime penalty to speak of" speech in class... :) Dan --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
- RE: What's up with %MY? Dan Sugalski
- Re: What's up with %MY? Bryan C . Warnock
- RE: What's up with %MY? Damian Conway
- Re: What's up with %MY? Damian Conway
- Re: What's up with %MY? Dan Sugalski
- Re: What's up with %MY? Dan Sugalski
- Re: What's up with %MY? Damian Conway
- Re: What's up with %MY? Dan Sugalski
- Re: What's up with %MY? Uri Guttman
- Re: What's up with %MY? Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: What's up with %MY? Dan Sugalski
- Re: What's up with %MY? Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: What's up with %MY? Ken Fox
- Re: What's up with %MY? Dan Sugalski
- RE: What's up with %MY? Dave Mitchell
- Re: What's up with %MY? Ken Fox
- RE: What's up with %MY? Dave Mitchell
- RE: What's up with %MY? Dan Sugalski
- RE: What's up with %MY? Dave Mitchell
- RE: What's up with %MY? Dave Mitchell
- Re: What's up with %MY? Bryan C . Warnock