Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > I, for one, will *never* use such a construct. It provides the user
> > with the dangers of `no strict' combined with the illusion of safety
> > of `use strict'.
>
> Do you mean the whole thing, or just the `blocks' part?
Any feature which subverts "use strict" by attempting to declare my
variables for me. In this case -- `blocks'. But also `subs' scope,
since that makes anonymous subs useless.
> As I mentioned in response to Graham's email, the `blocks' scope might
> well be of little value, and might get the axe. Especially if you're
> used to using blocks for `now' scopes, then this proposal might actually
> be counterintuitive.
I rarely use a `now' scope, but I appreciate its being there. What
I'm worried about is that auto-declaration is immensely confusing and
fragile. Adding a variable outside a previously-written block or sub
can change it completely. In effect, adding a new variable now means
that every part of the file should be considered unsafe, and must be
carefully checked. Contrast this with "use strict", where I can limit
my search to variable declarations (and "use strict vars" for globals,
if in effect).
Variable declaration is good (except for some trivial programs)!
--
Ariel Scolnicov |"GCAAGAATTGAACTGTAG" | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Compugen Ltd. |Tel: +972-2-6795059 (Jerusalem) \ We recycle all our Hz
72 Pinhas Rosen St. |Tel: +972-3-7658514 (Main office)`---------------------
Tel-Aviv 69512, ISRAEL |Fax: +972-3-7658555 http://3w.compugen.co.il/~ariels
