> From: Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | > Gabriel Dos Reis writes: > | > If by analysis, you can determine ... > | > | The problem with this type of logic is that it leads to arbitrary > | inconsistent designation of an object's reference as a function of > | the breadth of the "analysis", therefore seems clearly undesirable. > > There an inconsistency only if there is one in the program.
Yes, I fully agree. In which case it seems most consistent to treat the object as most recently specified, as opposed to potentially otherwise. (as it's the UNCERTAINTY of POTENTIALLY which makes it less desirable, than the unambiguous CERTAINTY of it's current effective declaration; where if there is an inconsistency, at least the resulting effect will be unambiguous; thereby abiding by the philosophy that two wrongs don't make a right.)
