[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Date Index Thread Index Search archive:
Date:Mon Feb 3 15:42:58 1995 
Subject:Re: SECTION_CANCEL 
From:Adrian Howard 
Volume-ID:950207.04 

In article <3gr29q$3ro@susscsc1.rdg.ac.uk>,
James Anderson <jadwa@Reading.ac.uk> wrote:
>o Is SECTION_CANCEL frowned upon these days?

Not as far as I know.

>o If so, how should I get the effect of cancelling unwanted identifiers
>  in a section?

See previous answer.

>o Why are vars statements inside a procedure a bad idea?
>  (c.f. compile_mode :pop11 +strict)

Two reasons:

    1) 90% of the time they should be lvars

    2) Previously -vars- had two purposes. Declaring a permanent identifier,
    and making it a dynamic local of a procedure. The second of those two
    tasks should now be performed by -dlocal-. The preferred style of using
    -vars- is now only as a declaration at top-level, before you would do:

        define foo;
            vars baz;
        enddefine;

    Now you do:

        vars baz;

        define foo;
            dlocal baz;
        enddefine;

    which makes explicit that -baz- is a permanent variable of indefinate
    scope which will exist until it is cancelled.

Adrian

aids (adrianh@cogs.susx.ac.uk)  ObDisclamer: Poplog used to pay my wages
Phone: +44 (0)1273 678367 URL: http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/adrianh/