[REBOL] Re: object funnies
From: jelinem1:nationwide at: 19-Oct-2001 11:08
Then which way is "better" depends on who the intended audience is for
REBOL: is it for those people who are twisted by over-exposure to
languages with an affinity for local scoping, or for those who do not
necessarily have much programming background and are not familiar with
these implicit rules?
- Michael
(Don't be offended by the twisted reference; I'm just throwing back what
I've caught from exposure to BASIC).
Rod Gaither <[rgaither--triad--rr--com]>
Sent by: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com]
10/19/01 09:38 AM
Please respond to rebol-list
T
To: [rebol-list--rebol--com]
cc:
bcc:
Subject: [REBOL] Re: object funnies
>This behavior is not intuitive? Surely you jest. Let me repeat just so I
>really understand: you expected test2 and test3 to be locally defined
>within the object's context? WHY did you expect that? That would be
>INCONSISTENT with the rest of REBOL. I find the workings of REBOL to be
>straight-forward and simple (the bugs are a different topic).
I've got to go with Graham on this one.
Much as I like REBOL I find this departure from
the typical "Scope" behavior of other languages
counter intuitive - consistent as it may be within
REBOL, which is another topic! :-)
I wouldn't expect test2 and test3 to be in the object's
context but I would expect them to be inside the function's
context, inside the object's context. Not exposed at a
global level just because they are inside a function.
Just my .02, Rod.
>If you want a language which behaves more like C++ and Java, write a
REBOL
>dialect.
>
>- Michael Jelinek
>
>"Graham Chiu" <[gchiu--compkarori--co--nz]>
>
>Sent by: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com]
>
>10/19/01 12:21 PM
>Please respond to rebol-list
>
>T
>To: [rebol-list--rebol--com]
>cc:
>
>bcc:
>Subject: [REBOL] Re: object funnies
>
>On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:42:15 +1300
> "Andrew Martin" <[Al--Bri--xtra--co--nz]> wrote:
>> Ladislav wrote:
>> > Essentially, the MAKE searches the SPEC block (but not
>> its subblocks) for
>> set-words. That is why MAKE didn't find test2: and test3:
>> in your example.
>>
>> I wonder if it would be a smart idea to make a scanner
>> function that looks
>> inside nested blocks for a object! spec and adds any
>> set-word! to the start
>> of the object's block, so that Graham's:
>
>I'm actually left wondering why RT chose to implement it in
>this way. It's not intuitive, and nor is it discussed in
>the online core docs.
>
>--
>Graham Chiu
>--
>To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
>[rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the
>subject, without the quotes.
>
>--
>To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
>[rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the
>subject, without the quotes.
>
Rod Gaither
Oak Ridge, NC - USA
[rgaither--triad--rr--com]
