--- Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/7/07, Roger Hui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There have not been any changes in the interpreter
> > in this regard. Perhaps the defn of "load" was changed
> > and that could have changed the behaviour. Or perhaps
> > you did your experiments using "load", thinking that
> > it was equivalent to 0!:0@< .
>
> On reflection, I have realized that this latter is the case:
>
> I was thinking that the local context I saw when using
> 'load' was a property of 0!:0 rather than being a consequence
> of load having an explicit (rather than tacit) definition.
And this realization is what I referred to as unveiling the
misconception about the 0!:0 context.
It might have been rooted in some written documentation,
because this misconception is universal. We need to look at
various places where 0!:0 and scripts are mentioned.
Or probably, the truth is not straight and clear enough.
The reality turns out to be much simpler.
This mechanism of local script variables visible to
the scope of the loading function may have some interesting
applications, such as custom loaders which can be
parameterized with temporary local variables defined
in the script(s).
Or it could be thought of functions mutating their bodies
at run time with code from nouns or even script files.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
