Yes, Jacob has got exactly what I was proposing. x += 1; x = 2 should continue to fail, since there would be a = statement in the function body in that case.
-- Carl
My first reaction was: +1 on the proposed change. It seemed logical. Then I had a reservation: it would widen the semantic difference between x += 1 and x = x + 1 which could trip someone innocently making a "trivial" code change from the former to the latter (x unintentionally becomes a local). So how about going further and say that x is only interpreted as local if there is at least one NON-augmented assignment in which x appears as a target on the LHS but x does NOT appear on the RHS? I.e. x = x + 1 (like "x += 1") does not (by itself) make x local. Or is this getting too hard to explain? Best wishes Rob Cliffe