In statically typed scenarios (closure world etc) - we can do automatic refactoring like java - where the language knows the name resolution, outer classes are closed (not dynamic etc). Let's notice not all refactorings can be done automatically

Closure world...

• Name resolution rules...

• local variable name
• (all variables declared in closures are considered local vars)
• outer class static names
• outer class dynamic names

• Code can move into and out of closures WITHOUT any changes - irrespective of the method implemetnation detail
• the compiler, IDE, shell can KNOW that the names map to (assuming the outer class is static, not open/dymamic

Builder world

• The builder decides what vanilla names mean

normal static resolution

• local variables

• delegate to builder.. it decides...

• default order is,
• static builder names
• static outer class names
• dynamic builder names
• dynamic outer class names

• Builders

possible precedence rules from within usage of a builder

Johns proposal...

• local variables
• static outer class names
• dynamic outer class names
• static builder names
• dynamic builder names

James proposal...

normal static resolution

• local variables
• static outer class names

changed dynamic resolution...

• static builder names
• dynamic builder names
• dynamic outer class names

Markup ideas

Stuff Guillaume is happy-enough with

Other ideas

Passing closures into markup

Guillaumes suggestion....

• markup

(* regular method call

Random bits of snippets

In scripts, what should be in the binding? or local variables?

Jochen:

• is it dependent on type of value or type of variable
• discussion ensued about static compile time checing
• if Foo has a method added after compiletime such as getBar(),
  then should the compiler give error... (as above in Foo)?

• vanilla names used to catch typos, whereas in markup the typos are ignored?
• late binding on properties and methods, but not on names
• good error handling is important

• lexical scope has to be handled by compiler
• classnames can't be dynamically bound
• scripts are normally associated with command line shells, and you have the concept of a variable stack.

• threadlocal variable scope?

• maybe when extending Expando, vanilla names are unbound?

• Not a lexical name, e.g. $foo is like a dynamic name which no
  checking is done for.
• $ seems slightly cleaner, because it is like a seperate namespace
• println foo.?bar
• An explicit syntax to mean a dynamic name

• 3 Options
  or
  or

scope:

or

or

• there needs to be an explicit rule where names are searched

Choice:

Either...

• Vanilla Name Resolution uses the names in the current editor
  (bound to the lexical context)

or

• Vanilla Name Resolution uses the names in the enclosing object
  (bound to the instance being referenced at the time)

or

both! - which is default, what is syntax for non-default
e.g.

jstrachan - "foo should be looked for in the metaclass of the outer class,
it should never look in the metaclass of the closure"