Re: "inline" (scoped) definitions?

[Kieren Richard MacMillan]

Hello, Erik:

> I like your suggestion, it is something I sometimes have wanted to 
> use. In
> some situations it makes life easier (like, if you have some special
> \property tweak which you find yourself using several times within one 
> block,
> it's kind of irritating to have to move out a definition outside the 
> block).

Agreed!

> What scope you were thinking that the "inline" variables/definitions 
> would
> have? Would they be global definitions, or would they be just within 
> the
> current {} block?
> (the latter would be more in my taste; feels cleaner somehow, and you 
> won't
> have to clobber the global namespace for definitions that only are used
> locally)

But best might be the ability to define \global and \local, kind of 
like some programming languages, yes?

Of course, it would be important to determine whether the new syntax or 
mechanism would be in any way an obstacle to newbies -- if it were 
transparent (i.e., did not change current syntax but provided 
additional power to more experienced users), that would be great.

Best regards,
Kieren.