On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 3:44 PM Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> wrote: > > `local' always creates variables at the current scope, or at the global > scope if `-g' is supplied. If it's supplied the name of a nameref, it first > resolves the nameref to find the name of the variable it's supposed to act > on, failing if it can't. Once it has the name it needs, it creates or > modifies the variable at the current scope. It doesn't try to create or > modify the variable at the nameref's scope. This is one consequence of > dynamic scoping that affects the implementation: a nameref's value is just > a name, not a pointer to a specific instance of a variable. Once you have > that name, the normal scoping rules apply. > > If you want to look at it from a filesystem perspective, a nameref is a > symlink, rather than a hard link.
Alright, that's all fair. But this? On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 7:29 PM Zachary Santer <zsan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Additionally, a nameref variable referencing a variable declared in a calling > function hides that variable in the scope of the function where the nameref > variable is declared.
