On 5/18/21 3:19 AM, Mike Rettig wrote: > With the current proposal I can't simply flush and close at the > end of the scope because there might be a child scope that is still active.
Yes, that's true. I think that what you have in mind is a more elaborate mechanism than what is proposed here, which does no more than bind values to names over a scope. There needs to be more discussion in the JEP of what this proposal isn't intended to do, and how we might cope with mutability of a scope local's values. -- Andrew Haley (he/him) Java Platform Lead Engineer Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com> https://keybase.io/andrewhaley EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671
