Sounds like you are using f. as a sort of subterfuge to get around the lack of a more straightforward facility.
When you call the parent's method from within a child locale, do you want the method to execute in the parent locale or the child locale? Or sometimes one and sometimes the other? Or perhaps executing it in the parent locale is an anathema. ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew Nikitin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 5:28 pm Subject: [Jbeta] modification of f. adverb > > From: R&S HUI > > > > I think f. itself was a bad idea so I would be reluctant to > > add F. . > > Oh, so now there is "right" way to call parent's method from > within child's > locale that contains method with the same name? What is it? > > > In most cases, you can distinguish local from global names > > by processing the text of the definition. > All of the cases I wanted that adverb was not in a context of > definition,but in a context of a script. > > > In general you > > can not because of ". and the like. > Actually, in j6xx I can: I can store the value of a name, then > assing to a > name globally, if there is domain error, name is local, if there > is no > domain error, name is global and we need to restore its old value > globally. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
