Thanks much. That makes sense. The key point is that it stopped in
foo0 when you did the first 13!:19; in Raul's example it seemed to
continue. The stop is sensible behavior; I will look into what happened
in Raul's example.
Henry Rich
On 4/6/2022 7:51 PM, Devon McCormick wrote:
Just did this:
foo0=: 3 : 0
y=. >:y
foo1 y
)
foo1=: 3 : 0
y=. y,XX
y=. y*10
)
4!:55 <'XX'
1
foo0 10
|value error: XX
| y=. y*10
|foo1[1]
y NB. Currently undefined because XX is undefined
11 , XX
13!:19''
|stop: foo0
| foo1 y
|foo0[1]
y NB. Value at this level as expected
11
XX=: 99 NB. Define variable to avoid value error
13!:4'' NB. Resume execution in "foo0"
110 990
This works the same as I've seen it in the past.
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 7:44 PM Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quite right, but I don't want to go there yet. I want to see if I'm
misunderstanding 13!:19.
Henry Rich
On 4/6/2022 7:41 PM, Elijah Stone wrote:
Suppose you want to look around in the caller's frame. You try
13!:19'', but it restarts immediately, calls problem again, and fails.
That seems like a valid use case. More generally, it seems like it
would be useful to poke around in _any_ stack frame, without
destroying the ones beneath (or on top of, depending on which way your
stacks grow) it. But that leads to forking stacks and continuations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
