OK, I don't know the advertisement, but as far as my knowledge of english is
exploited, I would probably interpret it as a funny compliment.
What was I trying to underline was this:
f: func [] [print "Executed"]
(((:f)))
with any number of parentheses yields the same result. Another example:
do [do [:f]]
you can use any number of blocks here too...
But, consider this:
do head insert copy [] do [:f]
>> do head insert copy [] do [:f]
Executed
You get a different result, which looks slightly illogical to me.
Actually, to be precise, I have designed a different model of evaluation,
that behaves exactly as Rebol evaluation in a normal case does, but is free
of such (illogical?) effects. (To be exact: it is a model I thought Rebol
used until I found the difference described above...)
Ladislav
> Ladislav, are you familiar with the old American (advertising)
> expression, "He's been eating his Wheaties!" ?
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Problem:
> >
> > 1) When trying code:
> >
> > ((func [] [print "Executed"]))
> >
> > with the result:
> >
> > >> ((func [] [print "Executed"]))
> > >>
> >
> > One is immediately tempted to draw:
> >
> > (i) Rebol functions evaluate to themselves.
> >
> > What do you think about that?
> >
>
> Well, considering the following:
>
> >> func [] [print "Executed"]
> >> f: func [] [print "Executed"]
> >> f
> Executed
> >> :f
> >>
> >> get 'f
> >> type? get 'f
> == function!
> >> do 'f
> Executed
> >> do func [] [print "Also evaluated!"]
> Also evaluated!
>
> I'd draw a slightly different conclusion:
>
> Unevaluated REBOL functions (such as the result of evaluating
> 'func, or the result of 'get on a word which is bound to a
> function) have no printable representation.
>
> The effect of evaluating a REBOL function (as when evaluating
> a word which is bound to a function, or when evaluating 'do
> with a function value as its argument) depends on the content
> of the function's body.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -jn-
>
>
>
