On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Ville M. Vainio <vivai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Interesting rule of thumb. Otoh, exec(g.findTestScript,...) exists by >> default. > > Indeed. I wonder if we could accomplish the same with less > objectionable syntax... I tried to simplify this further, but how to do that? The exec statement is executed for its effects in the *present* namespace. Thus, it won't do to put the exec in a function/method, unless it is possible to transfer the effects of the exec into the *callers* namespace. I do not know any way to do that, even if (as I attempted to do) the wrapper method compares the before and after snapshots of the local namespace. Clear? In short, I think using a top-level exec is in fact the simplest and clearest way. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
