the usage of ^. seems redundant

[yegor256]

We use ^. too often in .eo files. In the majority of situations this prefix may be skipped and the location of the object will be automatically found by the compiler.

[yegor256]

@maxonfjvipon compare this:

[] > foo
  [k] > bar
  bar 42 > x

and this:

[] > foo
  [k] > bar
  ^.bar 42 > x

The functionality here is not the same. Am I right?

[maxonfjvipon]

@yegor256 yes, they are different

[yegor256]

@maxonfjvipon I guess, the first snippet must be written as:

[] > foo
  [k] > bar
  $.bar 42 > x

Thus, we either have \xi.bar ($.bar) or \xi.\rho.bar (^.bar). Just bar means the first option. Am I right?

[maxonfjvipon]

@yegor256 yes, the first one, if it's not found it'll try to make the second one

[yegor256]

@maxonfjvipon maybe it would be better to make our syntax more explicit: bar means $.bar and that's it. If ^.bar is meant, it should be written as such. No defaults. WDYT?

[maxonfjvipon]

@yegor256 Actually yes, I think it's a good idea

[yegor256]

@maxonfjvipon maybe the other way around would be better:

$.bar means \xi.bar (we use it rarely, as I see)

bar means \xi.\rho.\rho...bar (where it is found)

[maxonfjvipon]

@yegor256 it should already work like this

[yegor256]

@maxonfjvipon not really. If I use just bar it means \xi.bar:

[] > foo
  [k] > bar
  bar 42 > x

[maxonfjvipon]

@yegor256 yes, if bar exists in the same scope, if it's not it'll try to find ^.bar, ^.^.bar and so on

[yegor256]

@maxonfjvipon this code should not compile:

[] > foo
  [k] > bar
  bar 42 > x

instead, it should be written as such:

[] > foo
  [k] > bar
  $.bar 42 > x