3 blocks is ok as can be seen by
>> help function
Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 5:58 PM
Subject: [REBOL] problems with local vars??? Re:(4)
> Is three blocks proper syntax for a function?
>
> Paul Tretter
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 7:10 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [REBOL] problems with local vars??? Re:(3)
>
>
> > > Here's your function slightly edited
> > >
> > > local-func: function [input][my-local-string][
> > > my-local-string: ; This says make it so that my-local-string
> refers
> > > to the next value. (1)
> > > "that is local " ; This says create a string value. (2)
> > > print append my-local-string input; (3)
> > > ]
> > >
> >
> > I think it's slightly confusing to say in (2) that the literal string
> > "says to create a string value". Instead, I suggest that in (2) the
> > literal string IS a string value. (If I had my geek hat on, I'd say
> > something more complicated like "serves as a reference to the string
> > that was created when this source code was loaded", bit I left my geek
> > hat at home today... ;-)
>
> Yeah, it probably is a bit confusing. I confused my contexts. I intended
to
> to convey the sense that Rebol "does it differently", especially compared
to
> a compiled language (which was the example), rather than attempting to
> explain the deepest truths behind Rebol (which I'm not entirely confident
> on). I should have made that clear. I sould have also made clear that my
> meaning referred to what happens at load - distinguishing between might
> happen when Rebol script is parsed as opposed to when Rebol values are
> evaluated.
>
> > Every time the function referred to by to local-func is evaluated,
> > my-local-string is set to refer to THE SAME STRING, rather than a
> > newly-created one.
>
> This sounds like a nice description when you have the expectation that
> functions always do something (their definitions) when they are evaluated.
> That they carry out all the parts of their definition when evaluated. A
way
> of thinking that says "this function now has program control" so it has to
> do something (which is quite reasonable to imagine). But I wonder if Rebol
> necessarily sees functions like this? Are they perhaps a dialect that is
> interepreted? I only ask this because I'm trying to shake of my normal
> assumptions of what Rebol is doing when it evaluates a "function" which is
> after all a Rebol value not something like machine instructions (another
> guess!).
>
> > Therefore, mutations on the value of my-local-string
> > (e.g., append, insert, remove, replace ) are continuing to operate
> > on the same string which ORIGINALLY (at load time) contained
> > "that is local ", but which has subsequently been modified with every
> > evaluation of the function.
> >
> > I don't want to sound hypercritical here! I'm really just thinking
> > out loud about how to describe the behavior of literal series values
> > in REBOL, as this sort of thing keeps coming up on the list.
>
> Yes, I know. I've collected three useful descriptions of it on my tips
page.
> But I feel that at least two levels of description (absolute beginner/ not
> an absolute beginner) could be useful - differentiated perhaps by one
using
> metaphor and the other describing "the truth"...
>
> > You certainly described the correct solution in the remainder of your
> > note, but I'm wondering if making a more explicit distinction between
> > load time and evaluation time will help us explain this.
>
> Well, I think Elan can tell you that he believes it would since this
> distinction is made in "The Official Guide" (p230).
>
> Brett.
>
