> But all this is moot unless someone comes up with a way to spell this > that doesn't require a new keyword or change the meaning of 'global x' > even if there's an x at an intermediate scope (i.e. you can't change > 'global x' to mean "search for the next outer scope that defines x"). > > And we still have to answer Alex's complaint that newbies misinterpret > the word 'global'. I'm not averse to introducing a new keyword, which would address both concerns. yield was introduced with apparently little problem, so it seems possible to add a keyword without causing too much disruption. If we decide we must stick with global, then it's very hard to address Alex's concern about global being a confusing word choice <wink>. Jeremy
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4