>
>
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 I wrote:
>
> > This binding must be persistent. I think it would be a good idea, if
> > make function! would bind the third and first of the function to functions
> > context.
>
> Hmmm... thought about it again. This would not help, because refinements
> don't carry
Elan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>You can easily determine which words are bound to the context of a function
>by retrieving the first or third block of a function.
>
> >> f: func [a /ref /local b] [ a ]
> >> first :f
>== [a /ref /local b]
> >> third :f
>== [a /ref /local b]
>
>With exception of /l
Elan, excellent demonstration of words/contexts in functions!
Thank you very much!!
-Galt
it's starting to make a lot of sense!
>= Original Message From [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
>Hi Frank,
>
>I think you are speaking about three distinct, albeit related tasks:
>
>1. Determining which words
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> I think you are speaking about three distinct, albeit related tasks:
>
> 1. Determining which words are bound to the context of a function.
> 2. Binding words that are bound in the context of a function to that context.
> 3. Determi
Hi Frank,
>> Re 1:
>> You can easily determine which words are bound to the context of a function
>> by retrieving the first or third block of a function.
>
>No, thats not possible. Example:
> >> f: func [a] [a]
> >> make object! [a: none insert second :f 'a]
You are taking issue with the t
