🚀 go-pugleaf

Thank you for that more detailed response.  As I now see it, our disagreement
stemmed from my interpretation of the term "enclosing scope".  I took that to
mean "a scope at a higher level", e.g. global scope vs. local scope.  It seems
that you (and the Standard) are using it simply to mean "a scope whose extent
includes the entire (enclosed) scope".  I grant that this is a reasonable, if
surprising (to me), use of the term, and it does make the Standard read as you
say.

>I don't recall "insulting your intelligence".

Perhaps, not knowing you, I misread you.  However, I'm sure you can imagine
how I might have perceived a reply which failed to address the point I was
making, instead suggesting I might lack the ability to read a clear spec, as
representing an insult to my intelligence.  I'm pleased to hear you did not
mean it the way it came out.

>I must say I don't see how you could misread the standard the way you have.

I hope that now you can.  I assumed "enclosing scope" meant "higher-level"
scope.  I don't think this was unreasonable, although I see you meant it more
literally.  I appreciate the clarification.

-- 
Michael Kahl, Symantec Corporation
mkahl@world.std.com  -or-  75236.3146@compuserve.com
Disclaimer:  Keep this quiet; what my employer doesn't know won't get me fired.