Bart Lateur wrote: > > No, it's a misunderstanding between you and Tony. The "do" your > reference is talking about, is of the form > > do FILE > > where file is a string containing a filename, while Tony is talking > about the > > do BLOCK > > form. do FILE behaves just like eval() (except it reads its data from a > source file), while do BLOCK doesn't. Neither. > Why `do FILE' behaves like eval, if there's eval to do it? Isn't this a little too much not-orthogonal? Why don't we require `eval { do FILE }' to have the behaviour of not dying and setting $@ ? - Branden
- End-of-scope actions: do/eval duality. Tony Olekshy
- Re: End-of-scope actions: do/eval duality. Glenn Linderman
- Re: End-of-scope actions: do/eval duality. Tony Olekshy
- Re: End-of-scope actions: do/eval duality. Bart Lateur
- Re: End-of-scope actions: do/eval duality. Glenn Linderman
- Re: End-of-scope actions: do/eval duality. Branden
- Re: End-of-scope actions: do/eval duality. Bart Lateur
- Re: End-of-scope actions: do/eval duality. abigail
- Re: End-of-scope actions: do/eval duality. Branden
- Re: End-of-scope actions: do/eval duality. abigail
- Re: End-of-scope actions: do/eval duality. Simon Cozens