>>>>> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LW> It is likely that if we have "is static", the compiler would translate
LW> my $pi is static = 3
LW> to something like
LW> our $foo__Xdeadbeef will init {.set(3)}
LW> I really hate the word "static" though, which is why I suggested
LW> an alternative once of something like
LW> our $foo is unique;
well, that isn't the same even if you can't guess the name. the name is
still in the symbol table and could be found by scanning the tables. but
then again, we are allowing introspection of my vars too with
caller(). :)
LW> where "is unique" (or whatever) monkeys with the name to make it
LW> unique. Then the program representation is closer to what's
LW> actually going on.
unique doesn't trigger anything to me. static (as the opposite of
dynamic on the stack) is what i am looking for. c used it inside subs
and outside and to mean different things. in perl it would only be
useful inside a sub to mean it staticly stays the same var from call to
call. we use my in a file scope for the other c use of static so there
is no confusion. in fact i would claim is static should be a compile
time (semantic checking time?) error on a var outside a sub.
LW> On the other hand, "is static" would be instantly recognizable to
LW> C programmers. Maybe they're due for a sop...
LW> It's not like someone isn't going to implement "is static" the moment
LW> our back is turned anyway...
yep. to many that name already does have a well known (if
slightly^Wheavily overloaded) meaning. we would use only one of those
meanings and stick with it.
uri
--
Uri Guttman ------ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------- http://www.stemsystems.com
----- Stem and Perl Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding ----
Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org
Damian Conway Perl Classes - January 2003 -- http://www.stemsystems.com/class
