Me wrote: > > c) the ability to break lexical scope > > Well, I could argue that c) already exists > in the form of passing parameters in parens. > > Of course, that doesn't feel like "breaking" > anything.
Formal parameters are lexically scoped. Lexical scope: references to the established entity can occur only within certain program portions that are lexically contained within the establishing construct. > So instead I'll argue that the word "break" > is perhaps prejudicially perjorative. > > I'd say, to steer away from being ppp: > > c) introducing 'locals' or 'yours' > > Where this terminology and perspective comes > from: > > My view is that c) is about sharing vocabulary > between a caller and a callee to retain much > of the referential simplicity and brevity of > globals (and hence I think it's a pretty large > issue), and c) is also about the fact that this > can be done while omitting /all/ the dangers of > globals (short of dangers that also apply to > ordinary lexicals). > > Elements of this shared vocabulary might be > called 'locals' or 'yours'. It's a valid proposal. It's just not lexical scope. I'm categorizing, not judging. This fits as a (c) feature. Allison
