[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: about the new version
- From: Carlos Cassino <cassino@...>
- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 09:59:50 -0300 (EST)
> >I would even drop the requirement for the '%'. It makes the code ugly *g*
> >(look at Perl!)
> Matter of taste, really. I think that '%' marks the place of "constant" values
> and so is useful. Not having some kind of mark could mislead people into
> thinking that upvalues were writable. Yes, if they were, '%' could be dropped.
But even if upvalues were writable, removing the '%' would lead to a
confusion whether a name refers to a global or to an upvalue, isn't it?