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
|