Re: Should MY:: be a real symbol table?

[Dan Sugalski]

At 09:57 PM 9/3/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Monday 03 September 2001 09:57 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Oh, it gets better. Imagine injecting a lexically scoped sub into the
> > caller's lexical scope. Overriding one that's already there. (Either
> > because it was global, or because it was lexically defined at the same or
> > higher level)
> >
> > Needless to say, this makes the optimizer's job... interesting. On the
> > other hand, it does allow for some really powerful things to be done by
> > code at runtime.
>
>This is more or less how you will be able to write your own lexically scoped
>pragmas.
>
>And yes, I'm sure it will be abused.

There are days I think wanton abuse is the sign of a useful and powerful 
feature. (Or the sign that Damian's at the keyboard again... :)

                                        Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk