> Could be mentioned or referenced in H. Frets and Scripts > http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dicth.htm > or in Scripts Foreign Conjunction (where it also does not > say about boxed and unboxed argument differences) > http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dx000.htm
Regarding the parenthetical remark: vide file vs. noun. ----- Original Message ----- From: Oleg Kobchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, August 7, 2007 20:16 Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Standalone Error wdhandler_base_ To: Programming forum <[email protected]> > I wasn't positive that there would be a written > misstatement, more an insufficiency of written statement. > > To start, here are a few informative references, > where it is prominent and well-explained. > > Eric Iverson, J Primer, When they aren't > http://www.jsoftware.com/help/primer/when_not_same.htm > (script locals are in scope of "load") > > Roger Stokes, Learning J, 26.5 Local Definitions in Scripts > http://www.jsoftware.com/help/learning/26.htm#04 > (detailed account of script locals with 3 : ' ') > > Henry Rich, J For C Programmers, 29. Modular Code, Assignment > > http://www.jsoftware.com/help/jforc/modular_code.htm#_Toc141158126(a small > note about load in context of so-called "private" assignments.) > > > But I was not able to find anything in normative > references: Dictionary or User Manual, etc. > Could be mentioned or referenced in H. Frets and Scripts > http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dicth.htm > or in Scripts Foreign Conjunction (where it also does not > say about boxed and unboxed argument differences) > http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dx000.htm > > > Here are a few places from the forum using random search, > that hint at some confusion or vagueness. > > [Jprogramming] Standalone Error wdhandler_base_ > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2007-August/007715.html > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2007-August/007720.html > > [Jprogramming] local and global assignment in different locales > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2007-August/007712.html > > [Jprogramming] Standalone Error wdhandler_base > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2007-August/007702.html > > [Jgeneral] unexpected result > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2007-March/029247.html > [Jprogramming] Fix local names > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2007- > January/004649.html(emphasis on "script", not explicit scope) > > [Jprogramming] Something almost cool - maybe a bug > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2006-March/001573.html > > [Jbeta] Global Assignment Error outside an Explicit Definition > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/beta/2006-February/000505.html > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/beta/2006-February/000503.html > > [Jforum] Scripts Won't Run > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2005-April/021472.html > (explained in terms of "script" not explicit scope) > > [Jforum] Running a Script > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2005-March/021224.html > (not knowing about explicit origin script scope) > > Jforum: =. vs =: in scripts > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2002-May/009466.html > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2002-May/009849.html > (older "loads" were tacit leaving script local in global scope) > > > > --- Roger Hui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Do you have any evidence that this misconception > > (a script having its own locals) is universal? > > > > Perhaps the extent of the misconception is due > > to the fact that the J IDE itself uses "load" > > and other explicitly defined tools like "script" > > (e.g. to implement "Run|Window"), and 0!:n > > are seldom used on their own. > > > > I do not think that the documentation that I am > > responsible for (dictionary, release notes) would > > say that a script has its own locals. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Oleg Kobchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Tuesday, August 7, 2007 16:10 > > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Standalone Error wdhandler_base_ > > To: Programming forum <[email protected]> > > > > > --- 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
