> stating “they are not deemed sufficient”, which lacks evidence, is a slightly odd way of reasoning imo.
I did refer to the fact that the mechanisms to restrict implicit globals were known for over a decade; the fact that we are having this discussion again (N + 1, as said by the original poster), with participants evidently aware of those mechanisms,
means they are considered insufficient.
The folks that are satisfied with the current mechanisms, or that don’t have an issue with globals at all, do not start those discussions. Only the ones that are not satisfied do. Now concluding that because you start a discussion, that it “evidently”
means others peoples problems haven’t been solved, and that the “general audience” still has an issue, is a rather big claim.
I honestly wonder what % of the community really thinks this is a problem worth solving.
> you're arguing against a post from someone claiming they actually were sufficient.
When they are claiming "it is sufficient", their true statement is "it is sufficient for me", where 'for me' is a shorthand for 'under some not fully disclosed conditions'. All one can take away from that is they are personally fine with implicit
globals at least right now; my proposal is compatible with that.
This argument equals your statement of “not deemed sufficient”. By what measure “sufficient"?
> I for one mostly use the ZBS linter, and LuaCheck in CI. Covers my cases very well. Additionally I like the ability to use Lua as a data description language for config files and the likes.
So you are claiming the same 'for me' thing. Your use of Lua would be fully compatible with
my proposal. Static analysis tools, specifically, can only benefit from explicit global declarations.
No. I was not claiming anything. Just mentioned how I deal with it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not necessarily against solutions to this “perceived problem”. And I didn’t even respond to your proposal, only to your reasoning.