🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <id.KXOO.61F@ferranti.com>, peter@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|> In article <STEPHEN.92Apr6203432@estragon.uchicago.edu> stephen@estragon.uchicago.edu (Stephen P Spackman) writes:
|> > I think the redefinability of globals is a practical necessity when
|> > writing languages with read-eval-print style interactivity that lack
|> > first-class namespaces. Corrections welcome.
|> 
|> You've fallen into Jim's trap. Since identifiers aren't typed in J, there is
|> no such thing as a redefinition of a global. There is just assignment of a
|> new value with a possible new type.

That's _NOT_ what the supporters of J are claiming.  They are saying that
every occurrence of an assignment introduces a new scope and that the 
assignment was a _definition_ of the variable.

Whatever you call it, an identified may refer to something of different
type in different parts of the program - something which I consider to
be undesirable.

J. Giles