Re: One more named reference scoping thing

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 4:03 PM Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Thinking further about this, I think a better solution is that when a
> referent goes out of scope, the reference loses the -u property along
> with it, and just becomes a "normal" named reference that moves to
> lower levels as the scopes unwind.

As a last (?) remark about this, let me show the difference in the "-u
6" test result if this change is made.

[...]
i:1: rs= - ra= - rs1= - ra1=
i:2: rs=h - ra=h - rs1=h - ra1=h
j:1: rs=h - ra=h - rs1=h - ra1=h
j:2: rs=h - ra=h - rs1=h - ra1=h
i:3: rs=h - ra=h - rs1=h - ra1=h
 k:1: rs=h - ra=h - rs1=h - ra1=h
 k:2: rs=h - ra=h - rs1=h - ra1=h
-h:3: rs=g - ra=g - rs1=g - ra1=g
+h:3: rs=h - ra=h - rs1=h - ra1=h
 k:1: rs=h - ra=h - rs1=h - ra1=h
 k:2: rs=h - ra=h - rs1=h - ra1=h
-g:3: rs=f - ra=f - rs1=f - ra1=f
+g:3: rs=g - ra=g - rs1=g - ra1=g

The scope is set to h via initialization in i. Instead of skipping up
to scope g and then back to h, the reference stays at scope h until
the return to scope g.  At that point instead of skipping to f, it
remains at g.

I think this makes much more sense than having the -u state reassert
itself a couple of times as the call chain unwinds, and is more
predictable than the alternative of skipping up some higher scope (in
this example, to scope g) and then sticking there.