On Monday, 25 November 2013 at 03:12:03 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 11/24/13 6:48 PM, ilya-stromberg wrote:
On Sunday, 24 November 2013 at 23:31:38 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 11/24/13 11:17 AM, bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
Shadowing globals is definitely a bad idea. Shadowing
members, it's
debatable.
So are you saying D here should give an error for the
shadowing of the
module-level x?
I think he meant "shadowing locals". As I wrote in TDPL, it's
a bad
idea to add a global somewhere and break a bunch of code that
has
nothing to do with it.
Yes, but D allows to use it. And in few cases global variable
can be
useful.
For example, we can have thread-local variable for database
connection
that used almost everywhere.
I agree. What I'm saying is it's not good to make shadowing a
global an error. It puts the onus in the wrong place.
Andrei
Would it be possible to introduce a global scope of sorts that
had to be explicitly referenced when one wanted to define or use
a global variable. I haven't thought of how this might interface
with other D features, but something along the lines of:
@global int my_gobal_var; //Gets added to global scope.
//Then any globals would have to be referenced as:
global.my_global_var = 7;
Makes for a bit of extra typing, and would mess with any module
named 'global', but it might work?
