On Saturday 23 April 2005 14:19, Juerd wrote:
> Mark A. Biggar skribis 2005-04-23 10:55 (-0700):
> > After some further thought (and a phone talk with Larry), I now think
> > that all of these counted-level solutions (even my proposal of _2.foo(),
> > etc.) are a bad idea.
> In that case, why even have OUTER::?

Referring to something by relative position is great when refactoring
will not change the relationship.

If you refactor the enclosing context, "whatever context is wrapped
around me" is changed by refactoring in the right way; while "that
specific thing that is 2 levels out (at the time I wrote this code)" is
changed in the wrong way, because the specific context you want to
refer to may now be 1 or 3 or 50 levels out.

Reply via email to