Peter Scott wrote: > > Given that even though we know the shared scope could be implemented, > the implementors may prefer not to do it. I would therefore reword: > > > We would prefer that the blocks share a common lexical scope in the > > way that C<continue> blocks used to; if this is deemed inappropriate, > > this feature can simply be deleted, and the outer scope can be shared. I added the following to RFC 88 + ISSUES + Lexical Scope: The authors would prefer that try, catch, and finally blocks share the same lexical scope. Yours, &c, Tony Olekshy
- RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scope. Tony Olekshy
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scop... Glenn Linderman
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scop... Dave Rolsky
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical ... Tony Olekshy
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexi... Dave Rolsky
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared ... Tony Olekshy
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with sh... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem wit... Tony Olekshy
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem... Tony Olekshy
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem wit... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scop... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical ... Dave Rolsky
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexi... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared ... Tony Olekshy
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem with sh... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 88: Possible problem wit... Tony Olekshy
- RE: RFC 88: Possible problem with shared lexical scop... Brust, Corwin