Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[REBOL] Re: New HTML Doc generator and recursing with refinements?

From: brett::codeconscious::com at: 31-Oct-2000 21:49

There has been a number of attempts at this and similar. The solutions are a matter of preference. Some of them are variations on a theme. Here's a sample. ____ 1) Do as you have done. ____ 2) Try out Ladislav's refined function found in highfun.r at ____ 3) Create a special refinement on your function taking one argument. Only use the refinement when you are making a recursive call from the function itself. Pass in an object that has a logic field for each refinement you want to pass. Downside: "none too pretty" argument handling. ____ 4) Create a special refinement on your function taking one argument and use the refinement (perhaps called "refinements") to pass in a block of set-word logic! pairs, one for each "normal" refinement. The trick now is interpreting them. You could use it as a object specification. Like so: test-func: function [ arg /test1 /test2 /refinements refines ] [mode] [ either refinements [ mode: make object! refines ][ mode: make object! compose [ test1: ( test1 ) test2: ( test2 ) ] ] if mode/test1 [ print "test1 success" ] if mode/test2 [ print "test2 success" ] ]
>> test-func/refinements "a" [test1: true test2: true]
test1 success test2 success ____ 5) Use the following function I created after I exploited paths behaviour when they are evaluated. Note: You really don't need the function. It just serves as a reminder that you can use paths (though you do need to get the path to be evaluated at the appropriate moment). refine-function: function [ "Refines a function with the specified refinements." [catch] 'f "The function" refinements [any-block!] ][p][ p: to-path head insert/only head copy refinements f :p ] Here's an example of using it. test-func: func[ /test-a /test-b ][ print "test-func" if test-a [ print "test-a" ] if test-b [ print "test-b" ] ]
>> my-refined-function: refine-function test-func [test-a test-b]
== test-func/test-a/test-b
>> my-refined-function
test-func test-a test-b ____ 6 A combined approach for a recursive function that I developed while trying to answer your post - thus not heavily tested. recursive-func: function [ arg [integer!] /test-a /test-b /mode refined-mode [path!] ] [recursive-call refinements] [ ; Lets set the "mode" it it hasn't been done already (The Overhead) ; If you didn't want the overhead, you could do this outside the function. if not mode [ refinements: copy [mode] ; Need mode here for the recursive call later. if test-a [insert tail refinements 'test-a] if test-b [insert tail refinements 'test-b] refined-mode: refine refinements ] ; Now form the recursive call (playing with paths). recursive-call: refine-function recursive-func (to-block :refined-mode) ; Now the real logic of this function (with a touch of overhead) print "test-func" if test-a [ print "test-a" ] if test-b [ print "test-b" ] if greater? arg 1 [ recursive-call (subtract arg 1) (:refined-mode) ] ] While it looks heavy, I think it is worth with especially if you have over two refinements. It don't know how it will fair in performance terms - it would be interesting to see. However, my main use for this will be to aid readability of my scripts. ____ ... No doubt there would be other schemes. I have a feeling that this was going to get attention in the language at some point - but I could be wrong. Brett.