In article <3bdad6fb@news.povray.org> , "Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk>
wrote:

> All I'm asking is that functions *always* create local variables for the
> parameters, no matter if existing variables exist that have the same name as
> the function parameters. Wouldn't that be more logical? And would't it be
> possible to implement?

You still did not understand which means I am not able to explain it well
enough :-(

What you are assuming is that function variables have a scope within the
parser like #declared variables have.  But they do not have any scope at
all!  They are not part of the parser and its #declared variables.  If they
had a scope in the context of the parser as you expect them to have (because
otherwise the #declared values could not be "hidden" inside functions) the
example I gave would be valid, but it is not and cannot be valid without
changing the fundamentals of what functions are (it would make them to
macros).  Let me try a different example (based on some other discussion
that took place in this groups recently).  It shows a problem the change you
are asking for would create (unless it would be made illegal).  I hope it
illustrates the problem of adding function parameters to any parser level
scope:

#declare foo = function(a,b,c)
{
    a +
    #declare b = 5;
    c + b // What is 'b' now assuming either model of operation???
}

Currently the answer is:  'b' will be substituted by '5'

You ask for:  It should either remain 'b' or be an error.  Neither makes
              sense to me.  I hope neither makes sense to you and it
              explains the problem with adding a scope for function
              parameters to the parser.

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message