do let in

Jon Cast
Mon, 03 Mar 2003 22:45:38 -0600

"Damien R. Sullivan" <> wrote:

> For the reason that I'm lazy and don't want to have to modify all my
> functions which use afact, or call functions which use afact, and
> don't see why I should have to -- they were able to call the 'fact'
> function as a global, and can refer to a global 'afact' if I define it
> outside of main with a fixed value.  I don't see why having a global
> dependent on outside input should be so much harder.

Never programmed in C++ much, eh?

In general, getting the ordering of initialization right in the general
case is a harder problem than you might think.


Jon Cast