Hi Ingo: In reply to your statement:
>When your 'op was named 'open, did you change the line
>fp: open/new/write %objone.txt
>to
>fp: system/words/open/new/write %objone.txt
>-
>??
>
>otherwise it has called itself, again and again ...
I didn't - and that's why I got a
Hi Tim,
I haven't closely looked at your code, but a
short notice on ...
Those were the words of [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> I have probably answered my own question:
> I'm still a newbie, but am pleased to return
> results ->
> ; == consider the following code: the two objects work
> ; independently.
I have probably answered my own question:
I'm still a newbie, but am pleased to return
results ->
; == consider the following code: the two objects work
; independently. They use the same named methods
; op, prn, and close
; When I named those methods open, print,and close,
; I got stack overflo
Hi Michael -
At 12:42 PM 4/11/00 -0700, you wrote:
>I'm currently defining a 'print element of an object as a function. I'm
>assuming that the REBOL definition of 'print will be hidden in the
>definition of this object (and definitions of functions local to the >object)
Actually .
print would
I'm currently defining a 'print element of an object as a function. I'm
assuming that the REBOL definition of 'print will be hidden in the
definition of this object (and definitions of functions local to the object)
- which is ok. Outside of the element 'print, the REBOL definition works
just fine
Hi Tim,
>Will
>tims-object/print
>redefine rebol's own print?
>
Within tims-object print replaces the global print, which you can continue
to access using system/words/print
>> tims-object: make object! [
print: func [][
system/words/print "this is the global print."
]
]
>> tims-
