Inline functions: scoping, and name

I really love the “inline functions”: instead of a complete DSL, or dealing with a clunky javascript API, you just add operator overloading to otherwise normal javascript code by a clever preprocessing step acting by inflection on the function’s defining string. Nice 😃 This does bring an unintuitive problem though: it breaks lexical scoping:

const a = 5;
console.log(CGA3D.inline(() => {
  return a; // nope
})());

A way to deal with this, though a bit cumbersome, is:

const api = { a: 5 };
console.log(CGA3D.inline((api) => {
  return api.a; // OK
})(api));

…but might there be a way to reconcile “inline functions” with lexical scoping?

Also, but less important, I’m not sure if “inline functions” is the most logical naming for this feature. What is its rationale?

[kelleyvanevert]

Another road to take, would be to go less “it’s just code” and more “register a collection of functions in a defined space”, say something like:

const A = Algebra(4,1);
const scope = A.scope(); // or .namespace()
scope.ei = scope.def(() => 1e4 + 1e5)();
scope.f = scope.def(() => ei + 5);

Not really the original goal you had in mind, but at least it has a clear and clean API and the other advantages are kept. Of course you’d implement it something like:

scope.def = f => return eval("(() => with(scope) { return " + magic(f.toString()) + "; })()");

[enkimute]

yes. easy-peasy.

it’s just string magic - no logic going on there 😉