On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 at 10:50pm, Eric Arnold wrote:
> Ok. For starters, it seems that you *can* call a numbered function
> from anywhere:
>
>
>
> function! s:T()
> echomsg "here"
> echomsg 'SID=' . expand( '' )
> endfunction
>
> let F=function('s:T')
> echomsg F()
>
> let F1 = function( '66_T' )
> echomsg F1()
>
> echomsg string( F )
>
> let s:dict = {}
> function s:dict.init() dict
> echomsg "in dict function"
> endfunction
>
> unlet! F2
> let F2 = s:dict.init
>
> call call(F2,[],{})
> " Note: F2 is a global, so the numbered function declared for a local dict
> " is available to call globally.
Right, and that is what I intended by saying the Funcref's are behaving
as the original functions. Since numbered functions are accessible
globally, their Fucrefs are too (for that matter, I don't think you can
even call numbered functions directly, so this situation is not
completely same).
>
>
> On 6/29/06, Hari Krishna Dara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > When Funcref's were introduced in Vim7, I expected them to work for
> > script-local functions, across scripts. The documentation didn't say
> > that, but it didn't say that it wouldn't either, and I thought that that
> > is one of its biggest uses (other than the actual intended
> > functionality, which is for implementing numbered functions). However, I
> > found that the Funcref references for such functions can't actually be
> > passed out to other scripts. This reduces the usefulness of this feature
> > as we can't register private functions to receive callbacks from other
> > scripts.
> >
> > What is weird is that the the Funcref() actually behaves exactly like
> > the function name itself. Say you have a function called s:T() and say
> > the script id is 60. The Funcref obtained via function('s:T') can't be
> > called from outside the script, but if the Funcref is obtained using
> > function('60_T'), then it will be fine. Also, a Funcref obtained
> > using these two methods will not be to the same object, though you would
> > expect them to be. The below echoes 0:
> >
> > echomsg function('s:T') is function('60_T')
> >
> > where as the below echoes 1:
> >
> > echomsg function('s:T') is function('s:T')
>
>
> In this case you are *not* creating numbered functions, so the string
> value you use is what gets stored.
I think you misunderstood me, I didn't mean this.
>
> > The above two facts make Funcref counter-intuitive to understand. I
> > actually wonder why even a special function called function() was
> > required to obtain the Funcref in the first place (unlike in Python).
> >
> > There are other aspects of the new features that are very
> > counter-intuitive to me, whether I think in terms of Python or generic
> > "objects" in any language. The one which gets me the most is the
> > implicit typing of variables based on the initializer. For basic types
> > prior to Vim7 (integer and string), you could easily switch the value of
> > the variable from integer to string or vice versa, and the type() of the
> > variable would change, suggesting that it behaves like "duck typing" (as
> > per (wikipedia). But this observation can't be extended to the newer
> > object types, as the below will fail:
>
>
> The whole auto-initialize thing is a sticky wicket as far as I see it.
> I'd love to have it initialize *all* cases where a name is
> references, either on RHS or LHS.
>
> However, I don't know whether this was intended by Bram as a way to
> implement type checking.
Do you mean E706 is probably unintentional in this case?
>
>
> > let a = {}
> > let a = []
> >
> > If the type of value determines the type of the variable, and if we are
> > merely dealing with references (assigning references instead of copying
> > objects), then why should the second statement above generate the below
> > error?
> >
> > E706: Variable type mismatch for: a
> >
> > Is there a standard for this type of language behavior? I didn't find
> > anything at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamically_typed
> >
> > I declare all my script variables before they are used, and it hurts me
> > for the fact that you have to create an empty array or hash such that
> > these variable types are established correctly. But when it comes to a
> > Funcref type, it is lousy that you have to initialize the variable with
> > the Funcref of some random function so that the type of variable gets
> > established as Funcref.
>
>
> I'm not sure I see the problem in practice. The only time you'd have
> to pre-define a funcref variable would be if you intended to try to
> use it when it was empty. Are you really doing this?
No, that is not what I was saying. If there is a way to declare
variables without initializing them, I would have said something like:
Funcref var
However, the equivalent of the above is to say:
let var = function('somefunc')
The alternative is of course to just initialize the variable as and when
it is required, but I generally don't like this approa
