> Hi Charles, Yo Brett. > > Is this what you mean? > > Yes and no. Heh. It was an idea which came to me late one night while reading over some REBOL. Kind of one of those "Why don't they do <this> like <that>?"
> Then there is the execution model - when is the code included. I'd like to > be able to build a script - the result being a script with no library > references. I might do that when I'm rebuilding my website/rebsite for lots > of scripts or I might want to do it on demand in response to a CGI request > for the script with some parameterisation. Other possibilities abound. Sounds like something... hm.. someone mentioned earlier something to be used in a REBOL editor - when saving the script, you could have it include any referenced functions, or simply have it 'paste in' functions that you need at the head of the script. Heh, like an included: [] block of functions. > In summary, I guess my interest is in: > (a) how to address reusable code snippets That is certainly an issue. Would the target remote library (for instance) be a normal REBOL script, or a collection of REBOL functions with/out the REBOL [] header? So many options.. > (b) how to compose the new script from reusable snippets and the specifics > of the script wanted. > (c) being able to do so for a variety of situations - code is data after > all. A rather large deal if you want any flexibility. Certainly beyond my (current) skills.. --Charles -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
