Hi Romano, On Friday, February 27, 2004, 11:46:59 AM, you wrote:
RPT> Instead, if i have a function like this: RPT> my-func: [a b /skip value /reverse] RPT> and i want to pass /reverse to find, I must construct exactly that kind of RPT> block full of false which seems so strange to you and that you say you will RPT> never use. Hmm, but if you have to construct the block, then why not constructing a path like Ladislav does in his functions. I don't see any advantage. RPT> If i rewrite a function i must respect the refinements order to make old RPT> program not fail. Probably it's much better to use named arguments then. Otherwise Carl has to add binding to refinements too. Regards, Gabriele. -- Gabriele Santilli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- REBOL Programmer Amiga Group Italia sez. L'Aquila --- SOON: http://www.rebol.it/ -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
