Re: global

[Björn De Meyer <bjorn.demeyer@...>]

Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo wrote:
> 
> >bar = 10;
> >
> >fuction foo()
> >bar = 5; -- this bar is local to foo()
> >print(bar);
> 
> How about "print"? Is it local too?
> --lhf

Hmmm... that is indeed a dificult question, 
seen the way LUA works with variables.
In PHP, print would remain global because it is a
builtin function (what I would want). However, in LUA, 
this would probably mean sacrificing orthogonality. 
You would need to add another rule in the spirit of 'if 
the variable refers to a builtin function, then it takes 
precedence above local definitions'. Which may not a good 
idea for LUA.

Still, I maintain that allowing function scope assignments to 
overwrite global scope variables is a bad idea. If forces 
programmers to know the name of all global variables and avoid 
them, to prevent them from being changed unadvertently. I wonder 
how the proposed global in ... statement brings adequate solace 
for that problem. 

I think I can sexplain my conundrum best with an example:

index = { "apple", "pear", "cherry" } 
-- I want the table 'index' to be globally accessible
-- but without the hassle of saying 'global' every time.
foo = function()
-- I want foo also to be globally accessible without a hassle
index = 0
-- But I want this 'index' to be local, without the hassle
-- of having to say 'local' or such every time.
print(index)
-- And to top it off, 'print' is the global print
end;

Yes, I want to have my bread and eat it. Perhaps some kind of
'super-global' scope could work here?

  





 




-- 
"No one knows true heroes, for they speak not of their greatness." -- 
Daniel Remar.
Björn De Meyer 
bjorn.demeyer@pandora.be