What's the general feeling about this proposal? Any thoughts of the architect?
kjs On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:47 PM, via RT Klaas-Jan Stol < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > # New Ticket Created by Klaas-Jan Stol > # Please include the string: [perl #57634] > # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. > # <URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=57634 > > > > hi, > > in PIR you can use the .globalconst directive in a sub to define a constant > that is globally accessible. > Likewise, you can use the .const directive in a sub that is local to that > sub. > > .sub foo > .globalconst int answer = 42 > .const num PI = 3.14 > > .end > > answer in this case is globally accessible (in any other sub, that is > parsed > AFTER the foo subroutine, I should note) > PI in this case is only accessible in this subroutine foo. > > > However, I question the need for .globalconst, as the .const directive can > also be used /outside/ of a subroutine, like so: > > .const int answer = 42 > > > Therefore, the .globalconst directive seems to be superfluous; why have 2 > directives that do the same thing; if a .globalconst is accessible globally > anyway, there's no need to define it WITHIN a sub. > > Therefore, my proposal is to remove the .globalconst directive; > whenever you need to have a global const, use .const outside of a > subroutine. > whenever you need to have a local const (in a sub), use .const inside a > subroutine. > > comments welcome, > kjs >
