Re: [Hardhats-members] Is there a good reason for dynamic scoping (was: Namespacing...)?

[Greg Kreis]

If we tried to fix the main concerns, it wouldn't be backward compatible with VistA.  Also, why make a radical overhaul of MUMPS when there are many other languages already supporting objects, etc. that are well established and have opensource versions that are well tested.  (I am not comparing them to GT.M, just making the point that they are mature and ready to use). I know some feel very differently about MUMPS and what should be done.  I've read that the trend in opensource is in the area of applications, not the lower layers such as languages and databases.  Those are well developed areas and the battles already won, right? Nancy Anthracite wrote: We have got to get moving again on this plan for a replacement for the MUMPS development committee. Greg, why don't you and Greg Woodhouse start working on that since Greg is bored. ;-) On Tuesday 06 September 2005 12:21 pm, Greg Kreis wrote: Hindsight is 20/20, but I sure wish that someone had seen the wisdom of creating a new class of array storage that had the following characteristics. 1. Disk-based so it didn't impact partition memory 2. Temporary (automatically was killed when the process terminated) 3. Supported nodes with WORM features (not required for all nodes of the storage) 4. Supported the idea of private and public branches of nodes The SSVN concept seems like it would be a great way to implement the above. Maybe there is no wisdom in what I described.... but either way, it is too late for VistA. The best we can do is instill consistent programming practices to maintain backward compatibility, right? Greg Woodhouse wrote: 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 Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members -- Greg Kreis http://www.PioneerDataSys.com "You are today where your thoughts have brought you, you will be tomorrow where your thoughts take you." (James Lane Allen)