Hi Charles, The code in $[ ... ] must not access any values from the stack. The intention of the literals vocabulary is to pre-compute constant values at parse-time.
Slava On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Charles Turner<[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all- > > I've been using the literals vocabulary for a number of things, but I > get a "Data stack underflow" when I say this: > >> ( scratchpad ) USE: literals >> ( scratchpad ) IN: scratchpad >> ( scratchpad ) { { 1 2 3 } { 1 2 3 } { 1 2 3 } } >> >> --- Data stack: >> { ~array~ ~array~ ~array~ } >> ( scratchpad ) { 3 2 1 } >> >> --- Data stack: >> { ~array~ ~array~ ~array~ } >> { 3 2 1 } >> ( scratchpad ) { $[ [ head ] 2each ] } > > What am I doing wrong? > > Factor x86_64, OSX 10.5.7 > > Thanks, Charles > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial > Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited > royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing > server and web deployment. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects > _______________________________________________ > Factor-talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
