Hi,
Larry wrote:
> Hi Joel
>
> > IMHO, using DO or USE is a more general mechanism, as it actually
> > allows you to "embed" references wherever you wish, instead of being
> > limited to the global level as with SET. For example:
> >
> I'm a little puzzled by your remark. SET is not limited to binding in the
> global context. Rather, the target word is simply searched for up through
> the context hierarchy. The first match determines the context where the
> binding occurs, in exactly the same fashion as the look-up for the value
of
> a word. For example:
I would like to change the above wording starting "Rather ...":
Rather the targer word is simply examined for its binding (the context it
belongs to is fetched).
>
> a: none
> ob: context [
> b: none
> em-ob: context [
> c: none
> set 'a 52
> set 'b 53
> set 'c 54
> ]
> ]
>
> After this code is run, we have:
>
> >> a
> == 52
> >> ob/b
> == 53
> >> ob/em-ob/c
> == 54
>
> We could also have said
>
> set [a b c] [52 53 54]
>
> in the em-ob, with exactly the same results.
>
> One limitation of SET is that it will only take a WORD or BLOCK as
argument,
> it will not accept a path. In that sense your DO construct is more
general.
>
> It is perhaps worth noting that in reading thousands of lines of
"internal"
> port, view, vid, and desktop code, I don't recall ever seeing USE used,
> perhaps because it was broken (exported refs generated a GC crash)for most
> of the last 2 years. Clearly, it is not really needed to create complex
> REBOL programs.
>
> -Larry
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
subject, without the quotes.
