Re: Mutable Bytes

Greg Ewing wrote:
> Mark Hahn <[email protected]>:
>
>> Even before I decided to store the local vars in the function
>> attributes,
>
> Local vars belong in a stack-frame object or equivalent that's created
> per function call. Copying the function itself for this purpose seems
> like needlessly mixing up concepts that should be kept separate.

Yes, you're right.  I mistakenly thought it was already being copied or I
would never have dreamed up such a goofy idea.

It would have functioned ok.  A shallow copy of a function is only a few
more words than a scope object.  There is already a link to the function in
each stack frame.  This would have just been a unique copy of the function
instead of a shared copy.

The big problem would have been the shadowing of function (static) vars.