[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: suggestion for backwards compatible "global"
- From: "Magnus Lie Hetland" <mlh@...>
- Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:52:38 +0200
----- Original Message -----
From: Russell Y. Webb <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: suggestion for backwards compatible "global"
> 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
> there doesn't seem to be an entirely satisfying word available though.
If we are to allow both sematics and mark the difference with a keyword
or something of the sort, it seems much cleaner to me to simply extend
the "local" syntax. One could for instance say that
means that all assignments are local (perhaps except the onse declared
function f (x)
y = x*2
would print out 1, 4 and 1... If one wanted to add a keyword (which I guess
undesirable) one could perhaps write "local all" or something, which would
be prettier IMO... Although probably unacceptable...
Anyway... I must say that personally I would favour having the default be
local with only the "global" keyword available... Guess I'm just used to it
Magnus Lie Hetland (magnus at hetland dot org)
"Reality is what refuses to disappear when you stop
believing in it" -- Philip K. Dick