Proposal keyword 'outer' (mixins)

[Bruno Medeiros]

Tom S wrote:
> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>> Tom S wrote:
>>> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>>>> Seems an ok proposal for outer classes.
>>>> But as for mixins that doesn't make sense, the scope they access is 
>>>> already the scope of the instantiation.
>>>
>>> That's the point. The rules for mixins must change as they are 
>>> inconsistent and error prone at the moment. IMO they should only be 
>>> granted access to the outer scope thru the 'outer' keyword and by 
>>> default only see the scope of their declaration.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ok, but then that's a whole other issue altogether.
> 
> Uhmm... how ? You said it didn't make sense for mixins and I claim that 
> it does and that they will benefit from the 'outer' keyword. Actually, 
> it's more important for them than for inner classes, as the current 
> rules for mixins are way borked IMO...
> 

'outer' for mixins only makes sense if you change the instantiation 
rules for mixins. What I was saying is that adding 'outer' for inner 
classes is a whole different issue than changing the instantiation rules 
for mixins, despite seeming related because they would both use the 
keyword 'outer'. (and as such the two issues shouldn't bundled as one ;) )

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D