[Bug tapsets/13721] local variable name collision

[dsmith at redhat dot com]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13721

--- Comment #5 from David Smith <dsmith at redhat dot com> 2012-02-23 18:28:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > I'd probably prefer adding the "local" keyword as opposed to reducing the scope
> > of what "global" means.  The latter seems more surprising.
> 
> It seems to me that any tapset that relied on a global from the user script
> would be prone to bugs.  i.e. if the user forgot to define the global, then the
> tapset would implicitly use a local instead, with quite different behavior.  So
> my intention is that restricting global in this way, that user globals are only
> available to the user's script, actually has a DWIM flavor -- it's unlikely
> that a tapset should ever mean to reference a user's global.  But if the
> consensus is that this is too weird or surprising, so be it.
> 
> A "local" keyword will do the trick, but I imagine it will make authoring more
> tedious.  We end up more verbose, and any time the "local" is forgotten, that
> becomes a latent bug in the tapset waiting for a name clash.

Hmm, I see your point about forgetting a local and being right back where we
are now.

(One advantage to 'local' that I just thought of is that a user could use it in
his own script where reducing the scope of what "global" means doesn't help a
user in his own script.)

But, on balance perhaps reducing "global"s scope make more sense.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.