On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 1:56 AM Roman Perepelitsa
<roman.perepelitsa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 6:45 AM Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
> >
> > I've reached the conclusion that "local" makes no difference here.
>
> I actually knew that! There is no way to remove a parameter from a
> scope. Once a name is added to a scope, it stays there forever

Turns out that such a name also retains its justification settings
when unset, so there's no need to resort to typeset +m to reassert
them.

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 9:55 AM Roman Perepelitsa
<roman.perepelitsa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If I were writing this code, I would change it without computing
> probabilities because it feels wrong to me.

Given the foregoing about justification there are a number of things
about the previously-attached "untie" that can be streamlined, so this
mostly became a non-issue.

In this replacement variant, the readonly|special branch could become
a fatal error (return 1) if that's preferred.