[kazinator]

Thread awareness is not a required part of the description of dynamic scoping.

Thread local storage does not make it absolutely re-entrant.

We could move the True Scotsman goalposts even farther out and say that we appreciate that the syntax being fine, but your approach doesn't work with interrupt handlers.

[saurik]

The syntax sort of looks the same but it isn't the same or "fine" if what you want is "dynamic scoping" (as dynamic scoping clearly is a way to scope things, not a way to set things). Is "thread local storage" the same as "state threading"? No. Does it look vaguely similar? Sure. Is "function argument binding" the same as "currying"? No. Could you imagine the former providing many of the benefits of the latter, or being how you might implement it? I guess?

I mentioned thread-local storage just because if you are going to develop this you should take that into consideration, as that's a common thing that will burn a lot of people; it was an unrelated code quality point for something you should do if you are going to do this kind of global variable stack thing. You could though use it to build something that was actually scoped by having a generic global dictionary and then keeping the names inside of the functions; at least then you are providing the core base noun of "dynamic scoping".

(And of course, as someone who has spent all of their time programming in C++ coroutines for over a year now, I am well aware that the thread local storage isn't sufficient to make this trick work correctly in every case.)