For a variable to "default" to "global scope" is basically the definition of how lexical scope works. To find a variable's binding occurrence, you look outward until you find it. Once you go far enough out, you get to the language definition itself, which ultimately must provide some "global" catchall case.

Python makes lexical scope much more complex to describe: Every variable is declared at a module (or REPL), class, or function boundary. To find the boundary where a variable is declared, first you look for the nearest boundary. If you've found a module boundary or a function boundary where the variable is in the parameter list, you're done. Otherwise, you search that boundary for any `=`, `global`, or `nonlocal` declarations of that variable. If you find `global`, you skip to the nearest module boundary, and you're done. Otherwise, if you find one or more `=` declarations and don't find `nonlocal`, you're done. Otherwise, you repeat this process at the next nearest boundary.

I do sympathize with a couple of the pain points you're talking about:

1. If a variable name is written with a typo, Arc's `=` will silently assign to a misspelled global binding. I think it'd be more ideal to alert the programmer to an error like C does.

2. To declare a local variable, an Arc programmer must use things like `let` and `with`, which add layers of parentheses and indentation. In C (ever since C99) and Python, local variable declarations can be performed in the middle of a block, and they don't affect the indentation of the following code.

For point 1, most of the time I like to program without using `=` at all.

And how often is it intended behavior? How often does one want to have a macro parameter or apparently "local" variable overwrite an existing symbol globally and arbitrarily?

I can see it being useful in the case of "hot patching" code to just redefine a function, but that's still kind of crazy, since now the source code and running code are no longer the same. Might as well just edit the file and reload it, and have one source of truth.

We're referring to the original posts problem where using = inside a function can redefine global variables:

  arc> (= data* '(green red)) 

  arc> (def my-fn () (= data* nil))
  #<procedure: my-fn>
  arc> (my-fn)
  nil
  arc> data*
  nil

assume you place this in html.arc

  (= data* '(blue red))

  ; (add-color 'purple)
  (def add-color (color)
    (push color data*))
    

  (= data* '(green red))

  ; (add-apple 'golden)
  (def add-apple (color)
    (push color data*))

  (load "lib/apples.arc")
  (load "lib/html.arc")

  > (string (car data*) " has gone brown")

  "blue has gone brown"

   (define (f)
     (define v 10)
     ...)

   (defun f ()
     (let ((v 10)) 
       ...))

   (defun f ()
     (= v 10)
     ...)

    (let
      (foo)
      (= a 1)
      (= b 2)
      (= c 3)
      (bar)
      (= x 4)
      (= y 5)
      (baz))

    (begin
      (foo)
      (letrec ((a 1)
               (b 2)
               (c 3))
        (bar)
        (letrec ((x 4)
                 (y 5))
          (baz))))

  (defun f ()
     (= v 10)
     ...)

I think you were expecting a concept that Arc doesn't have. Adding an unnecessary concept to Arc would make the language more complicated for newcomers who weren't expecting it, right?

Of course, if users do consistently come in with the same intuition, it's pointless to design against it. Often we've gotta design for complex realities rather than simple principles. :) If you think it's a case like that, I can sympathize, and maybe someday I'll see it.

Sometimes I feel like general-purpose plain text programming language is such a specific topic that it leads to only one possible language design. Feeling that way is probably the only way I'll design a single language at all, rather than designing a lot of half-languages and never finishing any of them!

In this case, I actually _don't_ feel like there's _no_ potential to alternative notions of lexical scope or variable assignment, but I think Arc's at a sweet spot, and I've some extensive reasoning as to why....

---

"We can't assume that it's more likely new users will be familiar with lisp idioms."

If not some other language's idioms, where did you get the idea of there being a "current scope"?

It's true that many popular languages have features where they infer a variable declaration at some notion of "current scope" around innermost point (Python) or outermost point (CoffeeScript, Ruby, MATLAB) where a variable is assigned. Newcomers to Arc from to those languages might expect this. (I think uu must be bringing in Python experience.)

I think some languages (R, Kernel, maybe some Scheme interpreters) represent the lexical scope as a run time data structure, and variable assignments can add new variables to the local scope that were previously looked up from an outer scope. They have lexical scope, but arguably not static scope.

I also want to mention PHP, which is off doing its own thing where there's hardly any implicit inheritance between lexical scopes at all. Every variable lookup or assignment is restricted to the current function unless there's an explicit `use` or `global` declaration to imply otherwise. I kind of admire PHP's willingness to make the interaction between scopes explicit like this; it means PHP could evolve to have different parts of the code written in different languages, with explicit marshalling of values between all of them.

Newcomers coming in from any of these languages might have different expectations. And that's not to mention newcomers from JavaScript, Perl, Scheme, Common Lisp, Clojure, Erlang, Haskell, Elm, Java, C#, etc., who probably expect Arc's scoping to work exactly as it already does (or who raise completely unrelated issues, like objections to Arc's unhygienic macros :-p ).

So let's look at Arc as its own language.

Thanks to Arc's lexically scoped `fn`, it's basically an extension of the lambda calculus, and it has easy access to all known lambda calculus techniques for Turing-complete computation. This means Arc programmers basically don't have to use assignment at all unless they want to.

In Python, those lambda calculus techniques are possible to use in theory, but every nontrivial lambda must be named and pulled out onto its own line, giving us something a lot like `goto` label spaghetti.

In PHP, every nontrivial lambda must have a `use` declaration to pull in all the variables it captures. This can get to be particularly verbose, eventually to the point where it might be easier to pass around explicit context objects.

Even using lambda calculus techniques a little bit in Python or PHP means we start to have trouble with mutable variables. Lambda calculus uses functions for control flow, but using functions in Python or PHP means creating new scopes, which means we can't easily assign to outer variables from inside our conditionals and loops. Most uses of mutable variables involve some kind of conditional or loop (or variable capture for its own sake), since that's what makes them anything more than a sequence of variables that happen to share the same name. So the more we use lambda-calculus-style conditionals and loops, the less we effectively have access to mutable variables in the programs we're writing.

In both Python and PHP, it just takes a little more boilerplate to work around this: We give up on mutable variables altogether and simulate them with immutable variables that refer to mutable objects. (There's also `use (&$foo)` in PHP and `nonlocal foo` in Python, if you prefer not to give up on mutable variables, but they amount to far more boilerplate.)

The standard boilerplate for these things in Arc is pretty much less than zero, thanks to macros. An Arc programmer can write a custom conditional operator as a higher-order function, and then when they're tired of putting the conditional branches in `fn` every time they use it, they can write a macro that generates the `fn` automatically.

Since Scheme and Common Lisp were already well-worn combinations of lexically scoped `lambda`, mutation (`set!`/`setq`), and macros, all of this could pretty much be predicted when Arc was designed.

Nevertheless (or maybe out of having different goals than I'm expressing here), Paul Graham and co. tried out automatic local variables anyway. It was implemented for an early, unreleased version of Arc.[1] Then they pulled this feature out because they realized they kept introducing or removing lexical contours by mistake and breaking parts of their code.[2] I bet this is because they were implementing some of their control flow macros in terms of `fn`.

Could it be possible to follow through on their experiment without recognizing all the same mistakes and pulling the plug again? Yes, I bet it is.[3]

But I think Arc's local variable scoping rules and variable assignment behavior are exactly what they need to be:

- Implicit inheritance of lexical scope to enable lambda calculus techniques (unlike PHP).

- The easy ability to mutate variables in outer scopes so mutation can work together with lambda-calculus-style control flow (unlike Python, R, and Kernel).

This still leaves the CoffeeScript/Ruby/MATLAB approach on the table, where only the outermost assignment is treated as a declaration. I don't particularly like this approach, and that's because I prefer for the outermost level to be relatively seamless with the rest of the language. That way it's easier to break parts of the language off into optional libraries when it turns out they're not as helpful as expected. Arc's top level already isn't seamless with the rest of the language, but I think this would be a step in the wrong direction.

In summary: If users come in with incorrect ideas about Arc's variable assignment behavior based on their experience with other languages, I think that's most likely a place where other languages could learn something from Arc rather than the other way around. The higher-order techniques of lambda calculus are a sweet spot in language design, and Arc's system for local variable scope is well tailored to that. The Arc designers originally did try automatic local variables. They found them to be unnecessarily complex to work with, and I agree.

---

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/arcll1.html "Here is a big difference between Arc and previous Lisps: local variables can be created implicitly by assigning them a value. If you do an assignment to a variable that doesn't already exist, you thereby create a lexical variable that lasts for the rest of the block. (Yes, we know this will make the code hard to compile, but we're going to try.)"

[2] http://paulgraham.com/arclessons.html "In Arc we were planning to let users declare local variables implicitly, just by assigning values to them. This turns out not to work, and the problem comes from an unforeseen quarter: macros. [...] In a language with implicit local variables and macros, you're always tripping over unexpected lexical contours. You don't want to create new lexical contours without announcing it. [...] It seemed to us a bad idea to have a feature so fragile that its own implementors couldn't use it properly. So no more implicit local variables."