Hi Ladislav,
I have to run now. Just wanted to mention that I believe you choose a
somewhat strong language,
>-----------
>I am sorry, but your approach is worth nothing,
>it's too trivial.
>-----------
when the triviality you complain about is due to the function you had
supplied, namely
samef
You had a problem with samef. I pointed out what the problem is
L>
actually, you didn't find anything wrong on my approach,
just found another approach, which gives a correct result, but is
unacceptable except for trivial cases. I do know even simpler way how to
change it:
samef: func [f] [:f]
But that doesn't mean I am happy I solved it. The problem here is, that
these trivial solutions are useless sometimes. This trivial problem I chose
only because I was sure everyone can understand it's triviality and the
fact, that legitimate approach fails...
/L>
and showed
you how to implement it correctly. Don't complain about the simplicity of
the function you had chosen to begin with. It wasn't my choice.
I wonder what John C. thinks about this problem, since he appeared quite
interested in functional programming and function reentrancy should be a
major concern to him, don't you think, Ladislav?
I'd be curious to see him join this thread. I'd expect to see an
interesting discussion between you two guys.
I'll comment a little more on your ideas later.
Take Care,
Elan
