[v2] local inner function in global outer function

[Brujah4]

Is it possible to have a local inner function in a global outer function?
That would be nice to get a kind of private inner function in a global function.
As far as I know this isn't possible, so I post it here as a wish.

My example:

Code: Select all

Init() {
	global
	var1 := 1
	var2 := 2
	(...)
	
	A_TrayMenu.Add "&Something", TrayMenuHandler
	
	TrayMenuHandler() {
		try {
			(...)
		} catch as err {
			(...)
		}
	}
}

In the code above the function TrayMenuHandler is only needed locally, so I wish it is a local inner function.
But as inner function the variable err is global and I don't want that.
Also, I don't want to have to init every variable with its own global.

Cheers

[swagfag]

there used to be keyword local alone on the first line of a function to render it force-local, but that got removed around the time Lexikos made global variables universally accessible for reading without requiring any prior declarations, so idk if its likely for it to make a comeback

[ntepa]

I just found out you can make a nested function not assume global by putting the global declaration after the nested function:

Code: Select all

Test() {
    inner() {
        InnerVar := 1
    }

    global
    GlobalVar := 2

    inner()

}

Test()
msgbox InnerVar

[lexikos]

As with any assume-global function, if you want a variable to be local, all you need to do is declare it as such (local err on its own line).

@ntepa Probably best not to rely on this as it contradicts the current documentation, and there was never any intention for declarations to be positional.

@swagfag Force-local would prevent the inner function from referring to outer variables. It was removed because functions, even built-in functions, now follow the same rules as variables and would therefore need to be individually declared before they could be called. There is no "revert to assume-local" statement because it wouldn't make sense for a nested function to be implicitly allowed to refer to local variables of an outer function but not global variables that the outer function itself could refer to.

Also, I don't want to have to init every variable with its own global.

In a way, the design penalizes the use of global variables. If you make your code more modular or self-contained, there will be fewer global variables to declare or not declare, and less need for (or benefit to) assume-global.

On the other hand, does your function assign to these global variables? If not, you did not need to declare them in the first place.