"LiveCode Infinity": lexically-scoped variables and bytecode blocks

Dar Scott dsc at swcp.com
Tue Jun 7 14:02:05 EDT 2016

In LiveCode, I tend to use small private functions.  In a twisted sense, a handler that calls those does have block-based lexically scoped variables, the block is just pushed into a separate function.  

On those occasions that I do write long handlers (for whatever excuse), I sometimes pretend that variables are block scoped for documentation reasons.  I declare the variables right before the section they are used in.  This might be confusing for others reading my code, though, so I minimize this.  

I also use 'it' as though it has block scope and try not to let its life go beyond the chunks of a handler as my brain sees them.  Clear use of 'it' often avoids the need of a variable.  (Though a variable with a good name helps with documentation at times.)  

So, for me, other improvements in compiling without language changes are more important.


> On Jun 7, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Dr. Hawkins <dochawk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Peter TB Brett <peter.brett at livecode.com>
> wrote:
>> Lexically-scoped variables are completely incompatible with the current
>> execution model of LiveCode Script.  If you changed it, it would be from
>> many perspectives a different language.
> So are things such as strict compilation, case dependency, and the like
> (which I think should be defaults, but . . .).
> I do see lexical scope, named control structures, and the availability of
> strong typing as absolutely critical for the longterm (even to the level of
> being a a go/nogo issue).
> -- 
> Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
> (702) 508-8462
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

More information about the Use-livecode mailing list