Hi Carl
Hey, thats great... I always wondered how you guys incorporated new natives
;-) ROTFL
But, seriously, I did not mean to imply that there *should* be a REBOL
compiler. Personally, I much prefer to develop code using an interactive
interpreter. I just wanted to make the point that one *could* make a REBOL
compiler with a few restrictions on late binding, etc. (which would not
effect most folks code). I am pleased that you agree.
BTW I just wiped my local www.rebol.com directory and reloaded all the
scripts using View 10.33.3.1. Everything ran OK except the boing.r demo
which still redefines load-image and do-events. It's looking good.
Could you say a few words more about index files (on the ALLY list or in
publish). I see the new ones have the keyword 'always. Does that cause the
local copy to be refreshed every time? Does summary work yet? Would you
like us to put the byte size of files in the icon entries?
Cheers
-Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2000 6:34 PM
Subject: [REBOL] rebol weak points (i think) Re:(6)
> So, why don't you guys just use the 'compile function?
>
> fast-sort: compile function [data [block!] return: [block!]] [a
[integer!]] [...]
> print type? :fast-sort
> native!
>
> <grin>
>
> Turns out, you *can* write a compiler for REBOL. However, to do so you
need to make "promises" about a function. You, the programmer, certify that
the contents of the function is indeed compilable (by not using very late
bound tricks).
>
> The benefit of the above is that you can use the rest of the REBOL
environment for meta stuff... like preprocessing what you will compile.
>
> -Carl
>
-----snip
