At 4:34 AM +0200 on 6/21/99, M. Uli Kusterer wrote:
> That's why we need them to be in the local variable scope. This way
>they're reset at idle.
I'd put them at handler scope, though.
However, if we treat them as regular variables, what happens if someone does:
"global e"
Do we spit out an error? Or should we say "OK..." and have a global called
e, which would (like all globals) effect only scripts that also have this
perverted construct?
Or maybe a seperate constant command:
constant e [= value]
>From an implementation standpoint, this is the easiest -- and perhaps the
best. When value is left off, the default value is used (in this case
2.718...). If there is no default value (and no value is specified) then
the script is ill-formed.
>Maybe we could avoid the problem by
>using the full name?
We'd still run into problems. That's why I'd like a symbol like � that is
not a valid variable name.
> Well, I can't recall any place in HyperTalk where this would be used.
I've done it. I forget where, though.
>Of
>course, it's never bad to be able to test for definedness, and we can
>always remove it to avoid bloatware (I'd propose "there is a variable",
>"there is a global" etc. for the syntax, but this is xTalk business).
Propose it :)
