Hi Ladislav
Are you basing your comments on assumptions? Or are you actually testing my
function !? I tried to follow your logic and - lo and behold - it works,
even though you claim it doesn't.
In detail:
>Hi, Rebols, sending the version 3.0.0.0 of Methods,
>using some of Elan's suggestions (thx!).
>It look qiute nice, thx to Rebol.
Thanks for the compliments.
>
>To Elan: the nonreentrant version of ! doesn't work in the example written
>at the end of this.
Which "nonreentrant version of !" are you talking about? My version of !
certainly passes this trivial test. Am I overlooking something? This is
what I did?
a: make object! [
num: 1
methods: make object! [
object: none
get-num: func [] [object/num]
sumnum: func [other [object!]] [ (do ! object get-num) +
(do ! other get-num)
]
]
]
b: make a [num: num + 1]
>> do ! a sumnum b
== 3
>> do ! b sumnum a
== 3
>>
It's working no? It's simpler. There are no problems. Why not use it?
>(Comment - your method of static storage is a "cheap currying", but it's got
>some problems...
Again these ominous "some problems". Which "some problems" are you
referring to? If the above example was expected to fail, I don't see that
it did.
>To be fair, my currying has some problems too - see curried functions
>thread, so i decided not to use currying, but instead hide the argument
>passing process under ! implementation)
If your currying has some problems, why not use the method I propose?
To remind you, this is my version of !:
!: func [object [object!] 'method ] [
set in object/methods 'object object
if error? try [return get in object/methods method] [return none]
]
Can you provide me with an example that demonstrates what you mean. (Oh,
and if I concur with my conclusions, please, please make sure that it
really does fail!)
Suspensefully yours,
Elan
