On 2/22/24 6:15 PM, Martin D Kealey wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 at 08:09, Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu <mailto:chet.ra...@case.edu>> wrote:On 2/20/24 4:11 AM, Martin D Kealey wrote: > Ideally each function invocation would have its own variable namespace, > only using the global namespace as a fall-back, but that creates > complications with exported variables, so let's take baby steps to get there. That doesn't work with dynamic scoping at all.Yes, that's exactly the point, to /avoid/ dynamic scoping. I want the equivalent of Perl's "my", rather than Perl's "local".
OK. Implementing static scoping for functions is not on my list.
Code that currently relies on dynamic scoping would continue to work, while new code can avoid the craziness that comes from "everything is global, even when we claim it's local" and "unset can even mess with the poor protection afforded by 'local'".
Do you mean that unset can mark local variables at the same scope as unset,
that unset can remove local variables at a previous scope, or that unset in
a shell function can unset global variables?
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU c...@case.edu http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
