From: Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality <ihatespam@...>
Date: 2007-09-24T11:10:03+09:00
Subject: Re: Weird variable scope behaviour...


"Phrogz" <phrogz@mac.com> wrote in message 
news:1190517508.484095.170340@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> I understand the behavior, and I've learned to live with it. But (as
> I've noted on numerous occassions) I really don't like the reverse
> side effect, that you can't write:
>  p foo if foo=true
> even though you can write:
>  if foo=true then p foo; end
>
> That two statements that are semantically identical should result in
> different behavior when foo has not previously been assigned a value
> is an unfortunate side effect/tradeoff of the implementation details
> and choices.
>
> I accept it in the same way I accept that arrays and hashes have, in
> some cases, traded purity for speed. It ain't perfect, but it's what
> we got.

    I'm interested in to what you're referring, here.  How was purity of 
arrays and hashes compromised for speed?
    Thank you...