scopes

Figuring out non-lexical scopes means that my mental model of what the compiler is doing is more difficult than it is right now, which may or may not be the right tradeoff.

All scopes import from higher level scopes.

Let's not confuse matters here: in both those languages an initialization-assignment will introduce a new binding within function scopes.

He's made many amazing scopes and advanced the art for the amateur a lot.

FYI, I will be completely upfront: I am dual studied in these fields, but within very narrow scopes.

I don't think zeitgeist has much to do with the Windows behaviour (or with the scopes behaviour).

However, things are clearer if you imagine two variables which happen to be defined in different scopes being set to the same object.

In CoffeeScript it will always be the parent scope's binding, which means that you must take extra care not to introduce variables used in scopes above, or below, at any given time.

It's an improvement, sure, and full scopes certainly don't compete on price.

Honestly, I don't care if a framework or the browser manages my component scopes, I just want it taken care of.

But 'constant' is much longer than 'a' and this sort of declaration is supposed to be harder than using other scopes such as 'my' or 'has'.

I second this, as the proud owner of a Rigol 1102E (and several other scopes), it's amazing what $400 gets you there.

In your case it may have been to send an email, containing only one sentence and nothing else (so there are no distractions) that says "I believe the problem is with scopes in compute_since_how_long -- can you please test this function?"

Scopes are tree-shaped, what more flexibility do you need?