Funny that you mention it. It slipped from our lists, but we do need to evaluate
dynamically built refinement blocks. E.g:
do to-path [insert part] a b
Should be the same as:
insert/part a b
Comments?
-Carl
At 5/26/00 08:55 AM -0700, you wrote:
>Oh yes, I've considered restructuring things, but the current arcitecture is
>the one that best suits all of my needs (the best one that I have been able
>to think of, anyway). Specifically, when I define a function element in an
>object, that function does nothing more than to call another function (not
>defined as part of the object) to do the work. For example:
>
>door-man: make object! [
> vocab1: "hello"
> vocab2: "world"
> speak: func [][say-greeting self]
>]
>
>say-greeting: func [idiot][
> print [idiot/vocab1 idiot/vocab2]
>]
>
>door-man/speak
>
>This simple example is neat and clean. The messy part is when I also have to
>pass-through refinements. Then I not only have to keep both functions in
>sync with the refinement list, but I also have to keep the 'if statements in
>sync. I've been doing that with the assumption that I only specify a single
>refinement at a time. To save me just that much more work, it'd be nice to
>have some automatic way of passing the refinements.
>
>I have considered passing the refinements as a block, and even the idea of
>defining them as an object (within the pass-through function) is appealing.
>This involves looping to get the refinement! values from the first block of
>the function. But the only way I know how to get the value of a refinement!
>type is to cast it as a word!, then use 'get, then bind it to the current
>context (ick). It seems like there should be a way to evaluate a refinement!
>type directly. That would make me happy.
>
>- Michael Jelinek
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 2:30 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [REBOL] refinements Re:(3)
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> But (unless I don't get it, here) this uses exactly what I am trying to
>avoid using: an 'if statement for each possible refinement. I agree it's
>easier and more straight forward, but it also creates more work to maintain
>(such as when refinements are added to a function). Since I use this
>"pass-through of refinements" idea as a common practice in my program, the
>added maintenance adds up.
>
>It's only one 'if per refinement that's to be passed through. It avoids
>multiple combinations of 'ifs. For each refinement added, it's only one
>extra 'if to write. I believe that this approach is only a small price to
>pay.
> If you're commonly passing refinements through to subfunctions, consider
>restructuring your software. It may be better to use a different approach,
>perhaps using objects?
>
>YMMV. :-)
>
>Andrew Martin
>ICQ: 26227169
>http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/
>-><-
>
