[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Date Index Thread Index Search archive:
Date:Mon Dec 11 15:29:12 1995 
Subject:``vars'' declarations local to a procedure 
From:Chris Dollin 
Volume-ID:951211.01 

John asks:

| 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.
|
| Which version of the variable would -valof- pick up?  You'd need to
| maintain a run-time list of word<->identifier mappings for valof
| to work properly.

(Mumble) good point.

``It wouldn't work with valof'' probably isn't acceptable, although it's
my immediate response, based on one of those fascist ideas that ``valof''
is a Dangerous Thing; ie, something whose use should casue you to think
*very* hard about whether you're writing good code.


Regards,    | I'd say that semantically C is a ramshackle hut   | Meilir
Kers.       | and C++ is a two-storey ramshackle hut.           | Page-Jones