1) They have everything to do with it. But as I said, you misunderstand what "resolve" and "bind" means. The compiler doesn't need to know the exact type in order to bind names.
2) They can be. I have said so many times.
1) They have everything to do with it. But as I said, you misunderstand what "resolve" and "bind" means. The compiler doesn't need to know the exact type in order to bind names.
2) They can be. I have said so many times.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
Thanks CornedBee,
From your help on this thread, I understand some of my points is wrong -- in the past.
Just curious to ask you, why the Spec involves the concept of dependent name and non-dependent name?
1. from bound point of view
From our discussion, dependent names should all be bound during instantiation time, but not all non-dependent names (like v and tmp in my sample) are bound during definition time.
So, from bound point of view, dependent name and non-dependent name do not distinguish anything?
2. from resolve point of view
dependent name and non-dependent name could distinguish names resolved at definition/instantiation time? I am not 100% sure about this.
It is appreciated if you could comment and give your definition about what is the differences between bound and resolved.
have a good weekend,
George
I have no longer the faintest idea what concepts you associate with the words "bind" and "resolve".
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law