I'm not making any comment in regard to whether it's a bug, a feature, a missing feature or whatever, because generally I think Simon is right that it's probably just that Mark originally intended parameters not to have scope within the type at all, and then probably decided it would be useful for them to have global scope and just decided to limit it at that, without adding in inherited global scope..
However, *if* ( and I have no idea if it is or isn't ) giving parameters inherited global scope were to break the ability to redefine fields, then that wouldn't be a good thing. I don't use that ability, but I'm sure others do and I'd hate to break anyone else's code just for this. It's not as though it requires a workaround or anything, it's just a peculiarity and adding scope within the parameters is hardly difficult or time consuming.
So yeah, I agree with Simon. It would be nice to have, and if that little tweak can be done without breaking anything, great. But it's not worth breaking anyone else's code for.
However, *if* ( and I have no idea if it is or isn't ) giving parameters inherited global scope were to break the ability to redefine fields, then that wouldn't be a good thing. I don't use that ability, but I'm sure others do and I'd hate to break anyone else's code just for this. It's not as though it requires a workaround or anything, it's just a peculiarity and adding scope within the parameters is hardly difficult or time consuming.
So yeah, I agree with Simon. It would be nice to have, and if that little tweak can be done without breaking anything, great. But it's not worth breaking anyone else's code for.