I'd like a ruling that &?CALLER::BLOCK is not a general-purpose block promoter, but only works if the calling block already marked itself as callable, perhaps by mentioning &?BLOCK in its body.
First, I like the idea that all blocks act as if they were subs WRT being callable and accepting parameters. However, the "as if" part of that statement is very important to a compiler. AFAICT, to achieve reasonable performance, a compiler must be able to assume that in the absence of markers or predeclaration, a given block need not be given all the accoutrements and instrumentation of a full subroutine, because nobody is going to call it _as_ a subroutine. It therefore would a Bad Thing if &?CALLER::BLOCK worked generally. If the caller _is_ a block that was already marked at compile time as requiring full sub properties then, of course, it's no problem to use the syntax &?CALLER::BLOCK to denote it. -- Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
