Thanks for this information. Helps.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 12:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [REBOL] problems with local vars??? Re:(10)
Hi,
you can do:
print read http://www.geocities.com/lmecir.geo/evaluation.txt
to read my "Rebol Values vs. Human Values" and
print read http://www.geocities.com/lmecir.geo/contexts.txt
to read "Words, Bindings and Contexts"
Regards
Ladislav
> The result is not what I expect. How do we account for this
behavior.
>
> >> probe :a
> "a"
>
> I thought the output would be ""
>
> Please explain this in more detail.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 4:58 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [REBOL] problems with local vars??? Re:(8)
>
>
> Hi,
>
> no "Dialect" notion can help you with your problem. (My personal
> preferences are, that Rebol functions aren't "Rebol dialect",
> because I think that there is a difference between a Rebol code
in
> a block and a Rebol function, which has got more attributes,
than
> Rebol code - see my Rebol function model in Words, Bindings and
> Contexts thread.) Back to your problem. The difference you see
can
> be visualised here:
> >> probe :a
> "a"
>
> a: 0
> b: :a
> add :b 1
> probe :a
>
> The results show, that there are differences between integers
and
> strings in Rebol, Rebol strings are mutable (you can change
them),
> while integers are immutable (you cannot change them). More can
be
> found eg. in:
> www.rebol.org/advanced/mutable.r or in the Evaluation thread.
>
>
> Regards
> Ladislav
>
>
>
> > > second :f is different. It returns a "live" block of code
(the
> body) with
> > > the contained words bound to the local frame of the function
> f. This
> > block
> > > of code can be modified with and extended (with append etc.
> using 'bind if
> > > necessary) after the function is created.
> >
> > > It seems clear that the
> > > interpreter executes the function by 'do-ing this body
block.
> >
> > The original reason I originally questioned the relationship
> between
> > functions and dialects in this thread was due to this "'do-ing
> the body
> > block" concept. To make the question specific define a
function
> f like
> > this:
> >
> > >> f: func[/local x][x: {} append x "a" print x]
> >
> > My question then is, how are the first two values (x: {}) of
the
> body block
> > treated when the interpreter executes the function? In terms
of
> purely
> > executing the block, logically it seems, the first two values
> could be
> > considered redundant, correct?
> >
> > A related issue (maybe), I don't know if it is been asked
> before.
> >
> > If I now use f, I get:
> >
> > >> f
> > a
> > >> f
> > aa
> >
> > Compare this with another function g and its results:
> >
> > >> g: func[/local x][x: 0 x: add x 1 print x]
> > >> g
> > 1
> > >> g
> > 1
> >
> > Are these results related to the execution of a function or
the
> > interpretation of datatypes?
> > Any enlightenment please?
> >
> > Brett.
> >
> >
>
>
