hi ho hi ho hi ho hi ... please note all.. as usual with functions, with objects to.. (i know you know, why else clone-object.. :) a: make object! [static: make object! [pie: 20]] and a/static/pie is static.. should one know again :) Volker [rebol [] ?do: func [todo] [prin ">> do " probe :todo prin "== " probe do todo] a: make object! [static: make object! [pie: 20]] b: make a [] c: make a [] ? a ? b print "------" ?do [b/static/pie: 10] ? a ? b ] >>>>> A is an object of value: make object! [ static: make object! [ pie: 20 ] ] B is an object of value: make object! [ static: make object! [ pie: 20 ] ] ------ >> do [b/static/pie: 10] == 10 A is an object of value: make object! [ static: make object! [ pie: 10 ] ] B is an object of value: make object! [ static: make object! [ pie: 10 ] ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 9-Sep-2000/19:12:06-7:00 > no. The Math/Pie you have created is an instance variable not a static > variable. It is associated with an instance of the class, not the class > itself. A static variable means that there is a single copy of this variable > associated with class itself. You do not need to instantiate a class to use > static variable. For example: > > make-circle: make func [ > radius > /local blah-blah-blah > /static num_circles ;let's say this is how you create static var. > ] [ > num_circles: num_circles + 1 ;this may not be correct but you get the > idea... > return make object! [ > ;object code goes here > ] > ] > > small-circle: make-math(2) > large-circle: make-math(100) > print make-circle/num-circles ;this should hypothetically print out 2 > print num-circles ;should print error > > Unfortunately, it would not make sense to add a static option the way I have > done it since not all functions return objects. > > Anyway, the fact that rebol does not have static variables and static > functions is no big deal. It was probably a concious decision not to include > it. > > The main advantage of having static variables would be to prevent name > collisions and to group variables/functions that act on a class (not an > object) together for use in a more natural way. > > The main disadvantage of having static variables is that perhaps it is an > unnecessary complication. But I don't think so. Maybe because I come from > java/javascript background. I'm still wondering though if there is a way to > have static variables that I don't know. > > Regardless, the main problem that I wonder about is if rebol is suited for > modular programming where people reuse other people's functions/code. Since > everything is either global or local, it seems as though it would be > unnatural to use rebol in this way. Java has packages and stuff...perhaps I > am not thinking straight and have too much java in my blood (which I have > been doing to much of lately and finally got sick of all the abstractions > that got in the way of doing simple stuff!!) > > Rishi > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 6:03 PM > Subject: [REBOL] rebol weak points (i think) Re: > > > > Rishi wrote: > > > Math.pi=20 > > > > >> Math: make object! [ > > [ Pie: 20 > > [ ] > > >> Math/Pie > > == 20 > > >> Pie > > ** Script Error: Pie has no value. > > ** Where: Pie > > >> > > > > Andrew Martin > > ICQ: 26227169 > > http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/ > > -><- > > > > > > >
