> Is that compatible with current use? I think the current semantics are that > global <name> always binds name to an object with that name at module scope. No, it's not quite compatible, but I don't think it's likely to break anything much in practice. > I thought the point of this discussion was to allow the programmer > to specify the precise scope of the object to which the variable > would be bound, in the face of possibly multiple occurrences of the > name. In general the point seems to be simply about finding *some* way to bind intermediate variables. Some suggestions have included a way to explictly identify the scope, but that seems like an unnecessary complication to me. Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a | Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. | greg at cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
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