[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED]!
>
> On 16-Giu-00, you wrote:
>
> j> Just a thought.... most of the "philosophical" questions /
> j> discussions here about i.e. object lifecycle, scope, bindings,
> j> etc. would be simply, formally, and workably solved if Rebol
> j> had a true lexical scoping model. As it is, it's sort of the
>
> If you by lexical scoping intend that of C/C++ etc. (I'm not very
> familiar with language theory terms), then I vote AGAINST that.
> REBOL's static binding is FAR more powerful (and simple!) than
> lexical scoping.
Cf. Scheme. In particular, check out the flexibility you get in
building i.e. custom object systems, dispatchers, etc. when you couple
lexical scoping with first-class closures. (Which we have a base for,
sort of, in blocks.)
jb
>
>
> Regards,
> Gabriele.
> --
> Gabriele Santilli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Amigan - REBOL programmer
> Amiga Group Italia sez. L'Aquila -- http://www.amyresource.it/AGI/
