Re: suggestion for dictionary representation

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 10:38:54AM -0700, David Carlton wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 23:10:56 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> said:
> > I'm tempted to whack the block special case for function arguments.  It
> > may make name lookup a little more complicated but I think it will make
> > everything clearer.  We could, of course, try this on the branch and
> > see if we like the results :)
> 
> Would it be reasonable to break up function blocks into two separate
> blocks: a linear block that only defines the parameters for the
> function and a non-linear block that contains the actual local
> variables?  Not that I think Jim's scheme is a bad one - I agree that
> it's better than the current scheme - but given the possibility of
> local variables shadowing function parameters, it seems to me to be
> conceptually cleaner to have two separate blocks appear anyways, and
> it also solves this problem.

Absolutely, I think it would be reasonable.  In fact I think it's a
really good idea.

> Also, for what it's worth, I'm still not ready to completely give up
> on representing members of classes via a dictionary; that would
> provide another place where a linear dictionary environment could be
> useful.

I wouldn't mind having the function arguments be a dictionary,
either...

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer