From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8080 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2000 07:34:13 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 21 Jul 2000 07:34:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 3607 invoked by alias); 21 Jul 2000 07:33:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 3313 Received: (qmail 3600 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2000 07:33:58 -0000 Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 09:33:57 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200007210733.JAA12787@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-users@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: Zefram's message of Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:32:41 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: Features of rc and es to zsh Zefram wrote: > ... > > >Lexically scoped variables N N Y > > This could be done only in a very limited form. The concepts that give > lexical scoping are quite alien to Bourne-style shells, and, while some > of them could be added, without a concept of function objects the utility > of lexical scoping would be minimal. > > I think the most minimal version of lexical variables -- declared > variables that become invisible to called functions -- would be useful in > itself, and reasonably feasible to implement. Closures (and the nested > scopes they imply) would be too big a change. Of course that would be interesting and we already discussed it. And I think one day we will have it... maybe we should have added it when we started with the new completion system, where it would be very useful and would have prevented some bugs. Oh well. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de