On 2/28/06, gwtmp01@[...].com <gwtmp01@[...].com>  wrote:
> 
>  On Feb 28, 2006, at 9:55 AM, chiaro scuro wrote:
>  The problem, of course, is that methods can come and go so you would
>  have to check every time the assignment was executed and I don't
>  think you would want the assignment to be to a local variable at one
>  point and then to be a method call at another.

that wouldn't worry me. it's a rare event that tests would probably
catch anyway.
I understand that it has been implemented statically, and that the
whole mechanism would need changing, but don't you agree that this
syntactic tagging and static interpretation of '=' is a kind of
defensive programming that we could do well without?

>  It has to be determined statically.  So any 'solution' to the problem
>  would probably be to introduce some clear syntactical hint with
>  respect to local variables...

-- Chiaroscuro --
Liquid Development Blog: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/liquiddevelopment