[FIX]: Gazprea iterators are non-mutable within their nested scope - #105
Open
Sir-NoChill wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
[FIX]: Gazprea iterators are non-mutable within their nested scope#105Sir-NoChill wants to merge 1 commit into
Sir-NoChill wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Collaborator
|
I'm pretty sure we used to do/allow exactly what the old spec said, and I'm pretty sure the examples showed exactly that: iterators being assigned to (not shadowed) within an iteration, but carrying on unperturbed on the next iteration. I'm not against your definition, but I'm not sure I'm aware of any other languages that forbid you from touching the iterator. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is my interpretation of the spec, that for iterator values, it is invalid to assign to them in the iterator body, but that variables can shadow the inner definition. Is that correct?
The second fix is for loop iterators. I have this implemented such that if you shadow the iterator, you effectively hide the iterator variable (as per usual with nested scopes) and then at the start of the next loop before redefinition the iterator variable takes on the iterator value.