"get" function

No, it's not a typo. The "get" function (or an equivalent) was used. No, it's not implied in native? What you wrote was equivalent to:

true The : prefix denotes a get-word value, that is to say :if is a get-word. In REBOL a get-word evaluates to the "contents" of the word. (I quoted contents because depending on the type of value, the result of the evaluation may be the value referred to in the word - as is the case with functions). The section on Words in the REBOL/Core 2.3 docs is still valid - http://www.rebol.com/docs/core23/rebolcore-4.html#section-5 Regards Peter =20=

It's also a nice shortcut for a security measure to avoid running functions, if you are processing untrusted input, where it would be possible to inject a function and you don't want to limit the possible datatypes in the function argument. my-func: func [data] [ case [ any-function? :data [:data] ; pass it through series? :data [parse :data my-rules] ; process it ] ] my-func some-dangerous-function == make function! [.... There are better examples, but that is the general idea. -- Regards, Henrik Mikael Kristensen

So, in a nutshell, `:blah' is identical to `get blah'? -- Duke

print native? :if ;; is the equivalent of print native? get 'if ;; I think :) I.E. get 'if ;; is the equivalent of :if ;; I think ? ? ? .... but there may be subtle differences. Let's see what others say. I'm falling in love with rebol all over again. -- Tim tim at johnsons-web.com or akwebsoft.com http://www.akwebsoft.com

it's: get 'blah not: get blah :-) it does the same, but GET allows you to for example retrieve any kind of value: get/any 'my-value == unset! even if it's unset.

** Script Error: my-value has no value ** Near: :my-value GET is also used on objects:

== 1208x815 -- Regards, Henrik Mikael Kristensen

LOL, not in this case, where you're passing a word. I assume, you wanted to refer to this:

== [1 2]

== [3 4]

a: 3 b: 4

As far as I know, yes, although the get notation is probably quicker. if is the standard or natural form; it refers to the action of returning any referenced value if: is the "set form"; it refers to the action of assigning if to a value 'if is the literal form; it refers to the word/symbol, isolated from any value it references :if is the "get form"; it refers to the referenced value, isolated from any word handles on the value If you evaluate native? if, you'll run into a problem because you used the natural form of if, which means it will trigger the dereferencing process (which requires arguments to be supplied to the function). You can inspect the function value referenced by if just like a series. To do this, use the get-form (or the get function) and use a series function:

== [condition then-block /else else-block]

== none

== [ "If condition is TRUE, evaluates the block." condition then-block [block!] /else "If not true, evaluate this block" else-block [block!] ] if is a native in R2, so there isn't much to access here. A function like probe might be better, since it's a mezzanine. Here are some of the guts of the simple probe function.

== [ print mold :value :value ]

== print

== mold

Well, more correctly, it's IN that's passing a word to GET, but the get in <object> <value> combination is a common code pattern, thus valuable to learn. -- Regards, Henrik Mikael Kristensen

If you want to be "more correct", then no, IN is simply returning a word, not passing it to something else. But, this is just terminology and it does not matter that much. The key issue is that GET is still getting a word, and there is no difference actually with the other examples. "GET on an object" is a different thing.

OK! Got it... Thanks! -- Duke

Thanks Ed! I'm going to have to study and digest your reply a little more. No time for it today. Much obliged. -- Duke