Re: Non-lexical (lexical) scoping

[Sean Conner <sean@...>]

It was thus said that the Great Egor Skriptunoff once stated:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 1:38 AM, Soni "They/Them" L. wrote:
> 
> > the ability to undefine variables.
> > That ability is itself lexically scoped
> >
> >
> Why the heck do you need this?

  I have a few ideas:

	1) I just thought of this and I think it's a good idea.  Let me toss
	   this out there and see if it sticks! [1]

	2) To get to upvalues that are masked by the same name:

		local a = 1
		function foo(x,y)
		  local a = 2
		  if x + y < 0 then
		    forget a	-- get to the a that is equal to 1
		    return a
		  else
		    return x + y + a
		  end
		end

	   Tis a silly example, but maybe gets the idea across.  Why anyone
	   would *want* this I have no idea, since it assumes a particular
	   stacking of scopes and I'm not aware of anyone anymore who thinks
	   that dynamic scopes [2] is a good idea.

> Show real-life example, please.

  I'm curious as well.

  -spc

[1]	I did this once, only it was for a feature in C that I used to do
	under Assembly.  Turned out to be a *very* bad idea---worse than
	setjmp()/longjmp() (which it was somewhat, kind of, similar to).

[2]	Example of dynanmic scope, assuming Lua support it:

			x = 1

			local function foo()
			  print(x)
			end

			local function bar()
			  local x = 2
			  foo()
			end

			foo()
			1
			bar()
			2

	foo() will use the first x it finds along the call chain, so when
	bar() calls foo(), foo() will see the x in bar and print it.

	This is a *bad* idea.  It's one of the few bad ideas from Lisp.  It
	makes debugging in a large codebase more difficult.