On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 18:20 +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
my suggestion is (text A), a complete reversal of behaviour:
Variables are only visible to the currently running script.
the possibility of a different extension allowing a different scope is
implicit -- everything not forbidden can be overridden :-). [...]
Aaron Stone's suggestion is similar in effect, I think (text B):
All variables have global scope within a script. Future
specifications may allow for a script to be composed of more
than one file [part?], or for running more than one script per
message [delivery?]. Such specifications may provide for
different variable scoping rules.
it attempts to be more explicit, but I think it muddies more than it
clarifies, to be honest.
How about replacing the first sentence of B with your proposal A.
The rest of the paragraph is trying to say that there would be other
specification with different scoping rules, or additional operators that
can declare a variable global for other scripts/imported from another
script.
okay, I suggest:
Variables are only visible to the currently running script.
Note: Future extensions may provide different scoping rules for
variables.
by omitting the middle sentence, we avoid getting into dangling
definitions (what's a "file"), and we also don't rule out the
possibility of a block local scope.
--
Kjetil T.