From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-31833-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 8659 invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2013 00:27:43 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 31833
Received: (qmail 28039 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2013 00:27:37 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=+05pAjBNZJH86h1JxCnx8XTfB6KCmEZ6Hmjc8o4HSo4=;
        b=jZvfjd/nj+LiGdufy5HNnjRgy8HUz4qXXHCLqOwsb8k5JIVNYRVI4VPF+7FL57q7oX
         nZAB+2GRshV5wYMHP+LRdWX9KJNgEE9owMT2EIPzzEy3YGnjC2KOQNNkwD9IcyzDgV9x
         4uPdbhB60YiFa7E9SIBCTBULv9FZIgqA3mkar9d2y/vXpIaPHKGOhAX10F0mwntsEHwE
         tI8k5e6JpAPPU/nuE+G8zQP3orbeH4oC/qETJttonezkHsD5QzG5QlKHq+G0YLZzlw9B
         YAuiEPwcSyxTTDmf8MRb+VFtffKxOFgCfy/1OQjox/C5kqF3Yi92wQ+ZoVu8AtjRQ1gP
         7wYw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmpWc+45NpAB2M1j6Ir9/NPA4Vajz5c7rRbYXIqlr4ZiCzYYTyz694Bn8y6/fggCOCEUXpj
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.36.41 with SMTP id n9mr4683579laj.21.1381969654891; Wed,
 16 Oct 2013 17:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:27:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAH+w=7akys-cPQPT07vsGbLSabY6wPAQwcXzkyHLY8n=3UkYug@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Important discussion about "local" on the POSIX list
From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
To: Zsh hackers list <zsh-workers@zsh.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

austin-group is discussing a proposal to make local variables
lexical/static in scope, rather than dynamic in scope as in bash and
zsh.

I don't seem to be able to post to that list, so if there's someone
here who still can, please have a gander and chime it.

The discussion ranges over

(1) whether "function name { ... }" vs. "name() { ... }" syntax
determines whether a variable defined within the function has static
scope (ksh93) and the keyword used to declare it is irrelevant;

(2) whether "typeset" or "local" or something else would be used to
declare such variables;

(3) whether "local" would be allowed to have dynamic scope at all.

It would be rather difficult in zsh's implementation to enforce
lexical scoping, so we'd be faced with either giving up POSIX
compliance or doing a massive rewrite.