Re: [sv-bc] Is an unnamed block with declarations a scope?

Gordon Vreugdenhil wrote:
> 
> Well, given the input so far, I am certainly prepared to
> adopt (2) as my authoritative interpretation as it is the
> simplest rule that preserves 1364 compatibility.  It would
> be convenient if everyone had the same interpretation until
> this can be clarified in some future rev in order to avoid
> interpretation wars over relatively simple issues like this.
> 
> Gord.

I think the notion of "real scope" in rules (1) and (2) is
just too simple.

It breaks P 1364 compatibility in the following sense:
When I add a named block nested inside one of these "real scope"s
I fail to get hierarchical access to that block's variables as
promised by P 1364.

This is why I favor developing (3) a little further.  If the
exceptions and explanations grow to be too much to teach, then
I might reconsider.

Greg