I'd like a ruling that ?CALLER::BLOCK is not a general-purpose
block promoter, but only works if the calling block already marked
itself as callable, perhaps by mentioning ?BLOCK in its body.
First, I like the idea that all blocks act as if they were subs WRT
being callable and accepting
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 04:13:08PM +0200, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: It therefore would a Bad Thing if ?CALLER::BLOCK worked generally.
: If the caller _is_ a block that was already marked at compile time as
: requiring full sub properties then, of course, it's no problem to use
: the syntax
