From pcd at roxygen.org  Fri Feb 26 06:41:54 2010
From: pcd at roxygen.org (Peter Danenberg)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:41:54 -0600
Subject: [Rd] proto and baseenv()
In-Reply-To: <971536df1002252042q40b9b00do23b24370ea919482@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20100225043854.GA26106@klutometis.wikitex.org>
	<20100224233350.4e3da5db.misc7@emerose.org>
	<4B8666E0.4070808@TU-Dresden.de>
	<20100225075038.79ca9b63.misc7@emerose.org>
	<4B868B1A.5050409@stats.uwo.ca>
	<20100225194919.00b10700.misc7@emerose.org>
	<20100226022322.GB19263@klutometis.wikitex.org>
	<971536df1002251931r4972bcdes9c6910423fc52af6@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100226041617.GB21674@klutometis.wikitex.org>
	<971536df1002252042q40b9b00do23b24370ea919482@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100226054154.GA23715@klutometis.wikitex.org>

> Also other object systems which are alternatives to proto seem less
> relevant than basic scoping and free variable lookup in functions.

Sorry, but that seems absurd; object systems are less relevant to each
other than the totally orthogonal question of scope?

> proto does that but uses the consistent default rather than the
> inconsistent default that you prefer.

$.proto falls back upon get(), I presume, because the authors didn't
feel like recursing up the parent hierarchy themselves; I'll continue
to believe that the scope pollution was an oversight until they
contradict me. At which point I'll probably switch object systems.

Vague appeals to consistency, when you're really only talking about
naive get() semantics, don't mean much; especially after you've spent
hours debugging mysterious bugs resulting from scope pollution.



[Rd] proto and baseenv()
Peter Danenberg