Hi Elan,
if I may comment on this one...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I cannot believe that we have been so drastically warned of the dire
> dangers lurking in self modifying code, only to be shown that by moving a
> local word, links, which references a block, to the global context, (about
> three lines higher) outside of the function, we convert a hard-to-read,
>...
> This example would really be one that would have been worth of being left
> as is. Say "Well self modifying code (smc) is not always dangerous. In the
> case that you presented it is really not a problem.", instead of blindly
> applying a "rule" without second thought.
As far as I can see/tell the point here is that the example isn't really
SMC!
Sure lists is part of the code and lists is modified. BUT list is
actually only
data, it is never really executed as I'd expect SMC would have to.
That's why
it doesn't really matter if lists is local to the function or not.
If lists would contain some Rebol code and it would be 'done' somewhere
I'd call
it SMC, but even then you still could make lists global (I think). But
then there
would be a big difference considering the meaning of lists.
Any comments?
Tom
