Re: Should MY:: be a real symbol table?

[Dan Sugalski]

At 10:50 PM 9/3/2001 -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Oh, it gets better. Imagine injecting a lexically scoped sub into the
> > caller's lexical scope. Overriding one that's already there. (Either
> > because it was global, or because it was lexically defined at the same or
> > higher level)
> >
> > Needless to say, this makes the optimizer's job... interesting. On the
> > other hand, it does allow for some really powerful things to be done by
> > code at runtime.
>
>Frankly this scares the hell out of me. I like my safe little
>world of predictable lexical variables. That's the main reason I
>use them. (So I'm boring. I use strict too.)

Good. It should. It's a scary feature, and hopefully that same fear will 
strike anyone else who uses it, so they think twice (or maybe three times) 
before they do it. However, it *is* a powerful feature, and one that loses 
a good deal of its power if it's restricted to compile time only.

Besides, I'm not the guy to talk to about restricting this. Take it up with 
the language guys. :)

                                        Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk