Re: Global = root of all evil
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 08:49:53 -0800, chris cuvier
<cchris005 at fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> Did in any bizzarre sense you imagine that I felt it would be /RIGHT/
>> to /ASSUME/ the local y()?
Ooops.
>
>Obviously it is right.
Er..
>When you call a global from your own code, you may or may not expect it
>to be redefined.
Now you lost me. Did you mean local?
> Eu should allow you, the coder, to decide.
Well, yes, the point was more to /force/ you to be specific.
>I'd advocate the following extra keyzords
>1/ generic: this would replace "global" zhen the coder allows
>redefinition of the symbol he created.
No idea what you mean by that. Example please.
>2/ restricted: this symbol is not to be seen outside the current file
>and the files it includes;
I think Java uses "package". I agree this scope would add value.
>3/ undefine: this is a request for the given outside symbol not to get
>in the way inside the current filem and any zhich would include it.
Ugh/Erm, why is this needed if 2/ exists?
>One should be able to define any local symbol without getting any error,
Yep, I'm about to fold to DP on that devils advocate thing...
Regards,
Pete
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
