Re: Global variable modification by nameref chain

[Grisha Levit]

On May 23, 2016 1:42 PM, "Chet Ramey" <chet.ramey@case.edu> wrote:
> >     Should the assignment work?  I'm considering changing the assignments to
> >     work more like the references.
> >
> > I think it would be useful for the assignment to work, as that allows
> > functions to take variable names as arguments without worrying about name
> > collisions.
>
> I don't like the fact that variable binding simply ignores nameref loops
> and treats them the same as the variable not being found.  That's the
> difference here.

What if (in a function scope) a nameref self-reference were unambiguously treated as referring to a variable in the next higher scope, other that declare [+-] on an existing ref?