>I'd put them at handler scope, though.
Anthony,
that's what I meant with local variable scope. Nice to see / we agree (a
rhyme!).
>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?
Why can't life ever be easy ? <g> One method would be only adding the "e"
constant to a handler's local variables when it's actually used. But if we
assume we add other constants this way ... ? Well, users are used to have
broken syntax when using variable names that might become a keyword, so I
guess we can just complain. Anyway, I think "e" is a very bad idea. Wasn't
that feller's name "Euler"? That's be a constant name few people would use
(although it sounds like a Swedish version of the German "Eule" ...).
>>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.
I don't think it's a good idea to explicitly declare constants that should
be pre-defined to use them. OK, they don't have to memorize the value, but
it#s just inconvenient. I think if we propose a "Euler" constant on the
xTalk list, everyone will be happy.
>We'd still run into problems. That's why I'd like a symbol like � that is
>not a valid variable name.
The problem is very unlikely. "Euler" is a much more seldom-used word than
"pi".
>Propose it :)
No, you do. I never used it.
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
--- HELP SAVE HYPERCARD: ---
Details at: http://www.hyperactivesw.com/SaveHC.html
Sign: http://www.giguere.uqam.ca/petition/hcpetition.html
