From: Kristof Bastiaensen <kristof@...>
Date: 2004-05-02T19:09:00+09:00
Subject: Re: def [](v) xx; return yy; end # returned value is ignored !?

Hi,

On Sun, 02 May 2004 03:08:36 +0900, Mark Hubbart wrote:
>    binding.local(:a) = 23  #=> 23
>    a                       #=> 23
>    binding.local(:a) += 19 #=> 42
>    a                       #=> 42
> 

I wonder how you could make this work.  binding.local(:a)
would have to return something that could be used as a 
lvalue.  I could be a reference, but the reason to have
these methods would be to avoid them.
Another way to do this:

binding.local(:a).value = 23
binding.local(:a).value += 19

binding.local(sym) would then return something like
a Variable class.  It will still be possible to change
the value of a variable, but not without participation
of the calling scope.

> also:
> 
>    binding.eval{ self }    #=> main
> 

Also here I would remove the eval.  Maybe binding.get_self or
binding.current_object?

> .. would be nice. I dislike having to eval strings when I need to do 
> some work within a certain binding; and I suppose that code blocks will
> compile nicer, especially when we get a VM.

Yes, I agree.  Maybe we could pack it up in a RCR?

Kristof