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

[REBOL] Re: ROUND function (like TRUNC, FLOOR, etc...)

From: g:santilli:tiscalinet:it at: 24-Feb-2002 12:10

At 18.06 23/02/02, you wrote:
>Well, perhaps I understood the original question. I took >"create a context" to mean constructing an environment with >one or more words not in the global contxt, not in the sense >of obtaining a "direct reference to the context"; I think
I think both are important...
>we've both stated in various ways that REBOL doesn't really >give a way to access contexts (per se) directly.
Yes. But objects are very close IMHO.
>As for your commeonts on the numbered list of things one >could do with a first-class context, perhaps I didn't express >sufficiently clearly that I considered them all to be inter- >related. For example...
Yes, sorry I think that the one being unclear was me. I just think that 1 and 2 are not useful if not to be able to do 4 and 5. [1]
>No, sorry, I wasn't asking for object-like behavior.
Then the CONTEXT! value is only useful for 4 and 5, IMHO.
>If contexts were first class, one *wouldn't* need a word that >is already bound to it. That was my whole point. Let's put >items (1) and (2) together and consider the following >(imaginary) bit of REBOL: > > use [ini mini meini mo] [ > ini: mini: meini: mo: none > ; > ; some functions that do interesting things, using > ; those four "private" words to maintain state > ; > immm-namespace: func [] [get-the-context-of ini] > ]
But you see that you've been using a word bound to the context to be able to get the context. So imagine I just do this: use [ini mini meini mo] [ ini: mini: meini: mo: none ; etc. immm-namespace: func [] ['ini] ] a-context-var: immm-namespace ; ... flarp a-context-var other-args... flarp: func [ctxt [word!] ...] [ ; ... bind [ini] ctxt ; ... ] The only things I cannot do are 4 and 5.
>Being able to do (1) and keep the result, pass it as an argument, >or whatever else one does with a first-class value, provides a >simple way to do (4) and (5) in terms of the context itself, >rather than having to keep around some specific word within the >context.
Yes, sorry again if I've been unclear.
>Therefore, I'm puzzled that we agree on the value of (4), (5), >and the general issue of first-class-hood, and yet don't see >(1) and (2) alike...
:-) Regards, Gabriele. -- Gabriele Santilli <[g--santilli--tiscalinet--it]> -- REBOL Programmer Amigan -- AGI L'Aquila -- REB: