Re: "inline" (scoped) definitions?

[Erik Sandberg]

On Thursday 15 January 2004 17.58, Kieren Richard MacMillan wrote:
> Paul:
> > I think as a programmer I agree with David that the macro/definitions
> > are easier to find done the regular way.
>
> I would certainly hope that, if my proposal were adopted, it would not
> eliminate the existing system or preclude its use, but rather augment
> it for those of us who would prefer the choice.
>
> Heck, I may just make it my quest to learn Scheme/python/whatever so
> that I can add this to the app myself, as a contribution to the
> community!  =)

I like your suggestion, it is something I sometimes have wanted to use. In 
some situations it makes life easier (like, if you have some special 
\property tweak which you find yourself using several times within one block, 
it's kind of irritating to have to move out a definition outside the block).

What scope you were thinking that the "inline" variables/definitions would 
have? Would they be global definitions, or would they be just within the 
current {} block?
(the latter would be more in my taste; feels cleaner somehow, and you won't 
have to clobber the global namespace for definitions that only are used 
locally)

Erik