Re: RFC: lexical variables made default

[Tom Christiansen]

>On Tue, 1 Aug 2000 23:43:24 -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:

>> (I, for one, support renaming local() to Something Better (if only I
>> know what that was))

>how about clone()?

I imagine that that name will be taken by something else, such as 
cloned interpreters.

Anything one chooses potentially conflicts with the user's namespace, but
probably save() or temp() would be better, or even savetemp() or tempsave()
or scopetemp().

Oh, and we don't need dynamic(), because that's what our() does.  One could
even make Chip happy by allowing one to scopetemp a lexical.

--tom