I guess the subject line says it all. Can anyone make a case for supporting dynamic scoping rules?
I realize that my previous post on this topic was a little unclear about the nature of dynamic vs. static scoping. Variables withing a nested block can hide variables by the same name in an enclosing block under static scoping rules, too. A simplke example of something that does require dynamic scoping is S D=4 W !,$$INC(1) Q ; INC(PI) ; Q PI+D Under static scoping rules, this code wouldn't even compile, because whether or D is within scope in the body of INC depens on whether or not it was bound when the call was made. === Gregory Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
