Re: Scope of step types

> | I think this still doesn't cover everything.  Surely the body of a
> | pipeline in a library can see the other steps and pipelines declared
> | in the library that contains it.

> Yes. And the more I think about it, the more I think maybe we really
> do want a single, global scope for step type names.

I'm dubious about this.  It means that importing a library in different
contexts has different results.

> I think the only negative consequence of this decision is that two
> pipelines in a pipeline library that each import a different
> definition for a step type will cause an error 

Why does only importing a *different* definition cause an error?
Are you proposing adding a rule that requires definitions to be
compared to see if they are the same?

I recommend sticking to what I think you originally intended, which I
will describe as:

The step and pipeline types visible in a pipeline or library are:

 - the standard built-in types;
 - any implementation-provided types;
 - the types visible in any library that is imported;
 - the step types declared in the pipeline or library
 - for a pipeline, the pipeline itself
 - for a library, any pipelines defined in it.

-- Richard