[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: A question on the definition of a chunk
- From: Gavin Wraith <gavin@...>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:47:19 +0100
In message <CABcj=tnG6e_zFBv+FgxR-jkd8xOCxkd8SA-WNUXAfj9mL+_NLg@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> > The scope of a local variable is the part of the smallest chunk
> > containing its declaration which follows it.
> The manual does not bring chunks into the definition of scope.
> It says:
> The scope of variables begins at the first statement
> after their declaration and lasts until the end of
> the innermost block that includes the declaration.
> Is the quoted definition equivalent to that? Hardly.
> The "smallest chunk containing its declaration" of a variable
> is just the declaration. The part of it that follows the
> declaration is empty. It's useless, but it is a chunk.
Apologies. All this time I have been equating "chunk" with "block".
So is it correct to say that the scope of a local variable is the
part of its smallest enclosing block that follows it?
I had better replace "(sub)chunk" with "(sub)block" in all my
Gavin Wraith (email@example.com)
Home page: http://www.wra1th.plus.com/