On May 23, 2016 1:42 PM, "Chet Ramey" <chet.ra...@case.edu> wrote: > > Should the assignment work? I'm considering changing the assignments to > > work more like the references. > > > > I think it would be useful for the assignment to work, as that allows > > functions to take variable names as arguments without worrying about name > > collisions. > > I don't like the fact that variable binding simply ignores nameref loops > and treats them the same as the variable not being found. That's the > difference here.
What if (in a function scope) a nameref self-reference were unambiguously treated as referring to a variable in the next higher scope, other that declare [+-] on an existing ref?
