<body><div id="__MailbirdStyleContent" style="font-size: 12pt;font-family: calibri;color: #000000">
Agreed. One shoud avoid writing code that uses "ActiveWorld" or even "Project current world" for that matter. It can only be a "last choice". Still, having it as a handy mechanism at the programmer's disposal, well, I find that quite valuable.<div><br></div><div>Comparing "World" against "ActiveWorld", I would say that "World"-use needs more attention right now. :)</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Marcel </div><div class="mb_sig"></div><blockquote class="history_container" type="cite" style="border-left-style:solid;border-width:1px; margin-top:20px; margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;">
<p style="color: #AAAAAA; margin-top: 10px;">Am 14.11.2017 20:37:12 schrieb Chris Muller <ma.chris.m@gmail.com>:</p>On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Marcel Taeumel <marcel.taeumel@hpi.de> wrote:
<br>> The dynamically-scoped "ActiveWorld", which is technically not quite
<br>> comparable with the global "World", is in line with ActiveEvent and
<br>> ActiveHand. One would have to remove all three concepts.
<br>
<br>Okay, and just to be clear, I'm not really pushing for any removals or
<br>non-removals as much as just trying to understand our policy toward
<br>globals.
<br>
<br>I see Dynamic vars as similar to globals in terms of being a
<br>read/write free-for-all, not scoped by the code structure, but by
<br>runtime conditions as well, which imposes an even greater cognitive
<br>load on the reader than a simple global. I know they have their
<br>use-case, but besides that, I do hope we'll steer clear of introducing
<br>any more DynamicVars into the base code.
<br>
<br>Best,
<br> Chris
<br></marcel.taeumel@hpi.de>
</blockquote>
</div></body>