scope-resolution

[Joshua Rosen]

From: Joshua Rosen <rozzin at geekspace.com>

Eckh--apparently, I had a dead-brain day, and took you much too
seriously.
Of course, there's got to be someone out there who needed to here that
stuff....

I imagine that you were using typing as a metaphor for scoping, and,
now that I see it, I can appreciate it.

It would be nice to have some non-mandatory scope-resolution
capabilities beyond self-referencing in instance-methods and `global'
statements.

What would be a different way of getting the effect of:

	ClassX.foo(ClassY())
?

Have bound and unbound methods be different creatures, perhaps....

No, never mind, I suppose--thinking about it, so long as you can
assure `this variable is a class variable', then everything should be
fine. Actually, just adding the instance's namespace to the list of
namespaces searched, in methods, shouldn't be too bad to implement,
and probably wouldn't break any of the existing code, eh? [function
locals, instance locals, globals]? 

		-Rozzin.