Re: Proof of concept: "static" parameter scope

[Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:23:27 -0700
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sep 28,  9:42pm, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> } 
> } What about "private" instead of static though? If the intention is to
> } hide it from called functions, it is somewhat closer to that concept,
> } if not just the normal word.
> 
> Once again it's not the same as C++ "private" if that's a concern, but
> I do lean in this direction.
> 
> Make up a completely new term?  "limited" ?  "bounded" ?  "scoped" ?

I quite like "private" and I think the C++ meaning is distant enough
that it's not really a confusion.  It's the only name that suggests the
scope is limited to right here.

"var" sounds a bit much like the name of a temporary variable.

If you really wanted to emphaise the C connection, the name would be
"auto", but that doesn't make sense for zsh since it doesn't distinguish
static from dynamic scope.

pws