Repository navigation
Scope definitions should not depend on JSON member order #401
Description
The scope schema says definitions are evaluated in order, allowing later variables to reference earlier ones. But JSON objects are unordered.
For example:
{
"define": {
"start": 0,
"end": {"~sum": ["start", 32]}
},
"in": {
"location": "memory",
"offset": "start",
"length": "end"
}
}Sorting the keys puts end before start, breaking the dependency under the current wording.
In solc, we work around this by emitting a separate nested define/in scope for each binding.
Could the spec use an explicitly ordered representation, or define evaluation without relying on object member order?
Raised during solc review.
Activity
gnidan commentedon Nov 10, 2026
Thanks for raising this! We can't rely on member order, but how about this: #408 makes order irrelevant by allowing members of a
defineto reference each other (or reference identifiers defined outside the block). Cycles are explicitly prohibited. This is already how pointers work for things like.lengthreferencing.offset, so I think it makes sense to extend this to members within adefineblock. Let me know if this suffices please!