Hi!

"Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> > So given that - how do we fix it? Introduce a new way to refer to
> > "globals", some kind of "binding" object?
> 
> The simplest way is probably to introduce a pseudo-operator like for 
> example, "&" to refer to the binding object. For example:
> 
>     &Foo isUndeclared "answers true if binding is undeclared"
>     &Foo ifUndeclared:[...] "eval if binding is undeclared"
>     &Foo ifAbsent:[...]. "eval if binding's value isn't present"
> 
> etc. with &Foo being a simple compiler hack which instead of emitting 
> pushLiteralVariable bytecode (e.g., pushing the value of the binding) merely 
> emits pushLiteralConstant (e.g., pushing the binding itself).

Given my foray into Compiler land (Namespaces package) this doesn't seem
hard to do at all.
In fact, I get very tempted. :)

> (note that in order to do this it would be extremely worthwhile to get away 
> from using Associations and instead make some specific VariableBinding 
> objects which implement the above methods)

Right.

> Cheers,
>   - Andreas

Now... I don't really know what I am talking about - but is this in fact
a special case of something bigger, something similar to hygienic macros
or whatever it is called? (Slate, Scheme etc) I mean, some way of
manipulating the AST of the code itself (which is my very shallow
understanding of what that is)?

Just curious.

regards, Göran