incognito? works well.
>> incognito? 'x 'x
== false
>> incognito? 'a/x 'b/x
== false
Why would any person write expression this way? (in a 'x)
That's not the intended design. But you can be nit-picky all you
want.
>> aa: prototype [
[ aa: 23
[ bb: 19 ]
>> bb: make aa [
[ ddd: 44
[ eee: ddd
[ fff: :ddd
[ ALIAS 'ddd "jjj"
[ ]
>> incognito? 'aa/aa 'aa/bb
== false
>> incognito? 'bb/ddd 'bb/eee
== false
>> incognito? 'bb/ddd 'bb/jjj
== true
>> incognito? 'bb/eee 'bb/jjj
== false
>> help incognito?
USAGE:
INCOGNITO? word1 word2
DESCRIPTION:
takes either two words from the global context or two paths
from
a prototype
INCOGNITO? is a function value.
ARGUMENTS:
word1 -- (Type: word path)
word2 -- (Type: word path)
Oh wait, here's your REBOL script that improves incognito? It's
right .....
Oh that's right, you haven't written any. Makes one wonder if
you can.
Pier Johnson
________________________________________________
Get your own "800" number
Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more
http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag
--
To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to
lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
