Non-declared Variables

"Avatar" <acampbellb@hotmail.com>
16 Oct 2006 09:42:51 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Non-declared Variables acampbellb@hotmail.com (Avatar) (2006-10-16)
Re: Non-declared Variables int2k@gmx.net (Wolfram Fenske) (2006-10-17)
Re: Non-declared Variables gnorik@gmail.com (2006-10-24)
Re: Non-declared Variables Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com (Peter Flass) (2006-10-26)
Re: Non-declared Variables pjb@informatimago.com (Pascal Bourguignon) (2006-10-28)
Re: Non-declared Variables ArarghMail610@Arargh.com (2006-10-28)
Re: Non-declared Variables genew@ocis.net (Gene Wirchenko) (2007-01-28)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Avatar" <acampbellb@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 16 Oct 2006 09:42:51 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
Keywords: design, question
Posted-Date: 16 Oct 2006 09:42:51 EDT

I would like to hear people's opinions on the ability to use variables
without declaring them in dynamic languages like Ruby.


It would seem to me that an argument for non-declared local variables
that typically occupy a small scope could be made. But, class
variables? What is the benefit in allowing for runtime definition of
class variables?


Are there real tangible benefits that non-declared, dynamically typed
(at binding time) variables provide? Or do dynamic variables simply
create less compile time errors and more (harder to catch) runtime
errors?


Thoughts?


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.