Hi,
Joel wrote:
...
> e) The RCUG specifically states that "the concept of none is not
> the same as an empty block, empty string, or null character".
> Yet there's an inconsistency
This feature disturbed me too.
...
> Does is nice syntactical sugar for a no-argument, no-locals function
> that packs up some behavior in a single word.
>
> Another nice feature of REBOL is the fact that words "controlled" by
> (most!) looping functions are localized, so that after the loop exit
> the prior value of the word has not been destroyed by the loop.
> However, this apparently was implemented using a context/scoping model
> rather than a save/restore model.
>
> The consequence of these two facts is that I cannot use a previously-
> defined Does block which has access to the loop-controlled variable(s).
>
If am supporting the Rebol behaviour here, because I don't like such
surprising changes in function behaviour depending on the place of its
evaluation. If you would like to have a changed function, you can create a
new one like:
whatever: "nonsense"
f: does [print whatever]
for whatever 1 2 1 [do does bind second :f 'whatever]
Regards
Ladislav
--
To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
subject, without the quotes.
