From: ara.t.howard@...
Date: 2006-08-02T06:00:07+09:00
Subject: Re: I thought this was the one that worked?

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Chad Perrin wrote:

>> it's not that there is no 'a', it's that there is no enclosing scope.  the
>> beginning of the 'def' introduces a new scope that is not 'contained' by the
>> previous one.  this is basic ruby.
>
> . . .
>
> What does that have to do with anything?

because in the original code

   a = 42

   def m
     puts a
   end

'a' will only be lexically scoped - and throw and error of course.  the
previous def of 'a' is totally superfluous - i was just pointing out that the
failure of ruby to find 'a' is going to be a failure of lexical scoping rules
because there is no enclosing scope (well nothing named in it yet) where an
'a' is defined.

regards.

-a
-- 
we can never obtain peace in the outer world until we make peace with
ourselves.
- h.h. the 14th dali lama