🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ROCKWELL.92Apr5115242@socrates.umd.edu> rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell) writes:
|The lifetime of a definition created by name=.expr is similar to a
|'=:' definition, but the definition is additionally tied to the
|explicitly defined routine in which it appears.  =. definitions are
|not visible from outside the particular instance of that program text
|where the definitions were created.  [Exception: I don't know why, but
|'=.' has all the properties of '=:' in the 'global context' (where
|users enter commands).  Presumably, this is thought to be more
|intuitive.]
|
|In other words, j has static lexical scoping rules.
|
|Have I left any situation uncovered?

Actually, you have told us nothing new at all about =. (though =: is
now clear, I think. It's a pity about the time sensitivity): you have
just substituted the words "programme text" and "routine" for "scope".
What do these things look like? What is the actual domain of the
definition?

Oh, I realise there's still a missing piece of info: if you use =: in
a scope that has introduced a new name textually identical to that on
the left of the assignment, what gets updated? The local, the global,
or both? If you are really LEXICALLY scoped, it ought to be the local,
but what if that defining scope has already exited? Is that handled
correctly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
stephen p spackman         Center for Information and Language Studies
stephen@estragon.uchicago.edu                    University of Chicago
----------------------------------------------------------------------