From: Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...>
Date: 2011-06-21T02:20:31+09:00
Subject: Re: CORE - Inconsistent Handling of Uninitialized Variables

On 20 Éïýí, 04:49, John W Higgins <wish...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Note:  parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]
>
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Ilias Lazaridis <il...@lazaridis.com>wrote:
>
> > (Please, if possible, avoid comparisons to the other variable types.)
>
> First, you specifically started this thread discussing the "inconsistency"
> in the way different variables types are handled. Now you sit here and
> complain when people are comparing the variable types. Which would you like?
> Inconsistencies most times come from trade offs between the different types
> - a discussion of those differences can be important to figuring out why
> they are "inconsistent"

First of all, my plea was optional ("If possible").

And then it's just meant for this sub-thread (where I wanted to focus
just on the globals).

> > I cannot see a use case, where placing $x_void into the
> > global_variables is *necessary*.
>
> > I possibly oversee something very fundamental, but the main rules for
> > my expectations are:
>
> > * variables come to existence when a value is assigned
> > * if the value cannot be determined, "nil" is assigned
>
> You technically might have a point here - but as with most things in life
[...] - (assuming it's for speed reasons)

The question is:

*Concretely*, is there any reason, by design/specification or by
implementation, that the above rules are not kept?

.

--
http://lazaridis.com