Re: suggestion for backwards compatible "global"

["Russell Y. Webb" <rw20@...>]

Good idea!  I suggested it about 2 years ago and didn't get anywhere with
it.  Perhaps times have changed...

I believe my suggestion was to use "method" or "routine" as the new keyword;
there doesn't seem to be an entirely satisfying word available though.

Russ



> From: "Tom " <tmb@aimnet.com>
> Reply-To: lua-l@tecgraf.puc-rio.br
> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:13:58 -0000
> To: Multiple recipients of list <lua-l@tecgraf.puc-rio.br>
> Subject: suggestion for backwards compatible "global"
> 
> One approach to introduce global/local without breaking old
> code or habits might be to have two keywords for function
> declarations.  
> 
> A function declared with the "function" keyword would
> continue to behave as it always has.
> 
> A function declared with another keyword (say, "fun"
> or "proc") would use the new semantics, and only in
> that context would the "global" keyword be valid.
> 
> This would also allow people who prefer the old semantics
> (say, for writing configuration files) to keep using them.
> The documentation could describe the more error-prone
> "function" as deprecated and discourage its use.
> 
> To help with converting old code, the interpreter
> might warn about any use of the "function" keyword when
> run with a special flag.  Of course, any new keyword
> may break a small percentage of old code; for full backwards
> compatibility, another flag could turn off recognition of
> the new keyword.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom.
> 
> 
>