Daniel Frey <daniel.frey@aixigo.de> writes: [...] | > If you think it is wrong, while being consistent with first principle, | > then propose a a new first principle. The worst thing to do, I | > believe, is to introduce barnacled hacks that comes from nowhere. | | > We need general rules on which to decide, we don't need barnacled | > hacks that would appear "intuitive" at a moment when we don't have a | > working definition of "intuitive". | | I feel accused of "introducing barnacled hacks that come from | nowhere". I don't think you meant to be insulting, but would you mind | to assume that I'm not just seeing things from such a narrow | perspective? I could also assume you are just "blindly applying rules | without looking at the consequences" - but I think you have better | reasons for your POV. I did not intend to insult you. Please accept my apologies if you feel insulted. "barnacled hacks that come from nowhere" already have some instances in the standard. I would not like to see them populated. What I would like to see is a consistent set of rules, not a long list of special cases. | I am actually trying to see where the idea of nested scopes comes from | and what purpose it fulfills. This purpose is IMHO to keep the code | readable with the smallest amount of code involved and the least | number of interactions between the names of different scopes. This Yes and no. Scope nesting implies name hidding, which also means interactions between names of different scopes. -- Gaby