There's nothing in the documentation that misled me. I think my reasoning was something like this: when I first read about local vs. global assignment, I thought of how APL has you specify locals in the function header and (wrongly) assumed that this was a different way of accomplishing that.
If you look at code I've written, I tend to use local assignment within a script except maybe on the rare occasion when I intend to update a (usually pre-existing) global. I've noticed that other people use global assignment in scripts but never thought much about it. I was using local assignment on the assumption that it was the neater way to do things, that the temporaries within a script would disappear once it finished. On 8/7/07, Devon McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's a misconception I had that I probably imported from my prior > knowledge of APL. > Also, C++ apparently will localize names to a block - see > > http://www.phim.unibe.ch/comp_doc/c_manual/CPLUSPLUS/CONCEPT/local_var.html. > > On 8/7/07, Roger Hui <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > Do you have any evidence that this misconception > > (a script having its own locals) is universal? > > ... > > > > > > -- > Devon McCormick, CFA > ^me^ at acm. > org is my > preferred e-mail -- Devon McCormick, CFA ^me^ at acm. org is my preferred e-mail ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
