Steve says:
| Chris asks:
| > How much code would it break (probably lots, and someone should write a
| > utility to find out) if ``vars'' declarations local to a procedure
| > invented a *new* permanent variable which it then dlocalised? Then the
| > intuition ``"vars" are local to a procedure, aren't they?'' would be
| > more accurately reflected.
|
| My intuition is that very little code would break. The proposed
| difference is merely that a local "vars" would *avoid* making a
| permanent declaration if one already existed. This would, in fact,
| make broken code start working!
No, that's not what I meant, Steve; I intended that a local vars would
make a new, hidden variable *irrespective of the existance of a non-local
with the same given name*.
As Aaron said somewhere, it would break all code that uses eg ``vars
cucharout''. Which is why I said ``... a utility to find out''; since
all such code is archaic, it should be fixed *anyway*.
So when do we get an up-to-date Pop11 book, then?
Regards, | "See the darkness all around | Renaissance,
Kers. | is coming down on you." | ``Running Hard''.
|