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

[REBOL] Re: dirty editor

From: greggirwin:mindspring at: 30-Jun-2002 13:46

Hi Gerard, I have only a little time, so I'll be brief and I'm sure others will chime in as well. <<
> probe get in ctx-text 'edit-text >
I know this one has to do with "contexts" but how does it differ from mine? Is there more to know about this way of doing things that could be of interest to me and others too that I didn't find yet ? What is the impact of requiring the content of ctx-text by the way of the get in instead of probing it directly as I did? I don't see any real difference here but may be in other situations it could be different ...
As you have found, there are many ways to locate information reflectively in REBOL. I was trying to show just the function responsible for the editing operation, so I used "get in" to look inside its parent context (in order to make PROBE happy). << The last time I asked VIEW to "print block? ctx-edit" the answer was not true . ? Can it really be so or did I goofed my VIEW somewhere ? For which situation can ctx-edit not be a BLOCK if this is possible? >> There are similarly named items that are not quite the same, and may be confusing. I haven't spent time analyzing their relationships in detail, but you can do this to see that ctx-text and ctx-edit are different datatypes.
>> type? ctx-text
== object!
>> type? get in ctx-text 'edit-text
== function!
>> type? ctx-edit
== block! ctx-text also contains a reference to view*, which contains many circular references so, while you can PROBE ctx-edit, doing a PROBE on ctx-text will give you a very long listing indeed. --Gregg