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

[REBOL] Re: Object problem

From: joel:neely:fedex at: 18-May-2001 7:12

Richard Smolak wrote:
> o: make object! [ > a: 5 > x: [a] > ] >
> o: make o [b: 10] > append o/x 'b > == [a b] > do o/x > ** Script Error: b has no value > ** Where: do-events > ** Near: b > >> >
I won't repeat the answer that Frank already provided, but take the opportunity to make a sales pitch for our mental model of REBOL to separate more carefully between source notation and "inner REBOL". (I've been bitten myself, and have recently found this distinction helpful.) We can have multiple words whose names are spelled the same, if those words "live" in different contexts. That was the key to the above puzzler. We can also have words whose names are not spelled according to the standard REBOL rules, if we construct those words ourselves instead of having REBOL create them by the default DO or LOAD behavior. A "source code word" must be constructed by certain rules (letters, digits, certain punctuation marks, etc.) because that's how REBOL decides at LOAD time to construct a WORD! instead of (e.g.) an INTEGER! or a URL! or whatever. But Ladislav has published some little koans that can be put together in the following block with curious behavior:
>> b
== [+1 a a a a a]
>> print b
0.9 42 -1 wot? impossible!
>> length? b
== 5
>> foreach thingie b [print get thingie]
0.9 42 -1 wot? impossible!
>> foreach thingie b [
[ print [type? :thingie tab type? get thingie]] word decimal word integer word integer word string word string
*** If you want to ponder on this puzzle, don't read *** beyond this point! The curious block B was created as follows:
>> a: 42
== 42
>> b: [a]
== [a]
>> use [a] [a: -1 append b [a]]
== [a a]
>> do func [a][append b [a]] "wot?"
== [a a a]
>> do compose/deep [(to-set-word "a a") "impossible!"
[ append b [(to-word "a a")]] == [a a a a a]
>> do compose/deep [(to-set-word "+1") .9
[ insert head b [(to-word "+1")]] == [a a a a a]
>> b
== [+1 a a a a a] Consequently, the first and last "real words" in B have names that wouldn't have been legal as "source code words". This could provide some interesting food for thought in the area of code shrouding! Just another illustration of the subtlety available with an extensible, dynamic language! -jn- ------------------------------------------------------------ Programming languages: compact, powerful, simple ... Pick any two! joel'dot'neely'at'fedex'dot'com