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

[REBOL] problems with local vars??? Re:(7)

From: bhandley:zip:au at: 19-Aug-2000 12:41

> second :f is different. It returns a "live" block of code (the body) with > the contained words bound to the local frame of the function f. This
> of code can be modified with and extended (with append etc. using 'bind if > necessary) after the function is created. > It seems clear that the > interpreter executes the function by 'do-ing this body block.
The original reason I originally questioned the relationship between functions and dialects in this thread was due to this "'do-ing the body block" concept. To make the question specific define a function f like this:
>> f: func[/local x][x: {} append x "a" print x]
My question then is, how are the first two values (x: {}) of the body block treated when the interpreter executes the function? In terms of purely executing the block, logically it seems, the first two values could be considered redundant, correct? A related issue (maybe), I don't know if it is been asked before. If I now use f, I get:
>> f
>> f
aa Compare this with another function g and its results:
>> g: func[/local x][x: 0 x: add x 1 print x] >> g
>> g
1 Are these results related to the execution of a function or the interpretation of datatypes? Any enlightenment please? Brett.