[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Just a thought.... most of the "philosophical" questions / discussions here
> about i.e. object lifecycle, scope, bindings, etc. would be simply,
> formally, and workably solved if Rebol had a true lexical scoping model. As
> it is, it's sort of the worst of both worlds: it's semi-fluid scope with
> explicit manipulation coupled with a sort of hybrid object / object
> lifecycle model that is never really formally elaborated. Without knowing
> the internal nitty gritty of the implementation, it's hard to say if this is
> endemic to Rebol or not, but looking at i.e. the potential solutions to
> similar problems in early Lisps vs. Scheme, I'd say there's a whole lot of
> good reasons for solving the problem now.
Just a note - isn't it too late, if two book on REBOL are already finished?
Elan, Ralph? :-)
-pekr-
>
>
> jb
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Nicely described Galt :)
> >
> > > I suppose it means you
> > > can bind a block to another block or word
> > > and it will share the context of that other
> > > block. I wonder what would happen if you
> > > unset O at this point. Could you still
> > > run Dialect and have it bind and reduce another block
> > > to what O was bound to?
> >
> > Tried it, yup it will and it won't work.
> >
> > It will for a bit until the garbage collector takes away O.
> >
> > Try
> >
> > Create O as in the example.
> >
> > Dialect [f1 f2] ; --Ok
> > Unset 'O ; -- oh oh , could be trouble coming
> >
> > Dialect [f1 f2] ; --Still works....Phew.
> >
> > Recycle;
> > Dialect [f1 f2] ; * Crash * -- Looks like the GC was a bit enthusiastic.
