Re: a new proposal for environments
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: a new proposal for environments
- From: Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@...>
- Date: 2010年2月26日 08:39:52 -0300
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 01:25, Roberto Ierusalimschy
> <roberto@inf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
> > Of course, you can write "loadin(_ENV, string)" and then make the
> > string share the lexical scope of its call site. But you must pass _ENV
> > explicitly; nobody can access it outside its lexical scope (except using
> > the debug API).
>
> I'm sorry to pollute the discussion with a n00b question, but I don't
> understand how changing the environment affects lexical scope...
>
> [...]
>
> But after reading your answer, I'm puzzled:
>
> would
> local a = 1
> loadin(_ENV,"a=2")
>
> change the value of the local, or create _ENV.a? From what I
> understand I'd say the latter, but I understand " "loadin(_ENV,
> string)" [will] make the string share the lexical scope of its call
> site " as the former...
>
> Could you enlighten me?
My mistake. Sorry about that.
> Of course, you can write "loadin(_ENV, string)" and then make the
- > string share the lexical scope of its call site. But you must pass _ENV
+ > string share the environment of its call site. But you must pass _ENV
> explicitly; nobody can access it outside its lexical scope (except using
> the debug API).
-- Roberto