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

[REBOL] Re: for bug?

From: g:santilli:tiscalinet:it at: 19-Jun-2002 12:38

Hi Joel, On Wednesday, June 19, 2002, 6:12:17 AM, you wrote: JN> That's a nice first cut, but it assumes that the object passed JN> to FOREACHIN will be able to deliver at least one value (since JN> the UNTIL loop doesn't check for failure until after trying to JN> evaluate the body on CURRENT. Indeed. My first version was using THROW on /NEXT, but I realized it was probably uselessly complicated, as the issue with "no iteration at all" can be dealt differently. JN> 2) Require the object to have two methods /MORE? and /NEXT JN> where /MORE? indicates whether it is possible to call /NEXT JN> without failure, and /NEXT returns the next unused value JN> from the iterator. I have a third: let the first /NEXT be no-op, and return immediately true if there's nothing to do. Anyway, your seems the simplest. Regards, Gabriele. -- Gabriele Santilli <[g--santilli--tiscalinet--it]> -- REBOL Programmer Amigan -- AGI L'Aquila -- REB: