[REBOL] Re: Redefining system words - gotchas
From: santilli:gabriele:gmai:l at: 27-Apr-2007 18:08
2007/4/27, Tim Johnson <tim-johnsons-web.com>:
> I'm curious, are you saying that 'path isn't really a viable rebol native
> function? I notice that >> native? path ;; return false
> while >> native? while ;; as an example only
> ;; returns true
It's an action!, not a native!, that's why native? returns false. But,
the point is that it is an internal action, that is not supposed to be
used by users. It was being unset in older rebols but it is not in
newer versions. It should be safe to unset it.
> If so, how did that docstring get in there?
> Asking 'cuz I think you're working directly with the binary "C" code.
I'm not, but I can guess. I've seen some bits of C code so I know that
the docstrings are embedded in C comments; I guess Carl has a script
that extracts them and builds the rebol code that "defines" the
natives (see the other "mysterious" function called "native"). So
since the whole process is automatic, PATH is there even if it should