Mauro <[email protected]> wrote:
> If I understand correctly, you argue that all global bindings should
> be declared in the (lexical) global scope. An inner scope could then
> use that binding by using `global`. But new global bindings could not
> be created in local scopes. I think that would functionally be
> equivalent to the current status. I have no feeling about which would
> be superior syntactically.
Right. It's the implicit creation of new bindings that I dislike. Or
rather, the fact that sometimes new bindings are created, sometimes
not, depending on the context.
>> 2. also, technically, your lexical closure isn't required for the
>> function itself, but for the particular method you're defining. But I
>> guess there's no way of declaring an empty generic function?
>
> function foo end
Oh! So, it's exactly that. Your previous example:
let tunnel_port = 9201
global next_tunnel_port
function next_tunnel_port()
# ...
end
end
can actually also be written like this:
function next_tunnel_port end
let tunnel_port = 9201
function next_tunnel_port()
# ...
end
end
--
ELS'16 registration open! http://www.european-lisp-symposium.org
Lisp, Jazz, Aïkido: http://www.didierverna.info
