Ingo, I beg to differ, my description was not "a little misleading," it was completely incorrect! Well, not wholy incorrect, but part about the set-word eventually getting evaluated was absolutely incorrect.
This is a relief to me, because it was starting to bother me when I discovered that other types were not getting evaluated upon return as I expected, and that set-word was starting to appear to be some strange exception. I must have dropped into console about 5 different times today throwing path!'s set-path!'s function!'s op!'s and whatever I could think of at ??, each time scratching my head while pondering the mechanics of the black box. I really appreciate the correction. --Ryan Ingo Hohmann wrote: > Hi Ryan, > > Ryan Cole wrote: > <...> > > So one difference is probe evaluates its argument, whereas > > ?? captures the argument without evaluation and attempts to > > print its word along with its value. The little tick mark does in > > ??'s function spec grabs a value without evaluating it like normal. > > > > A common example... > > > > > >>>?? b: 5 > >> > > b: > > == 5 > > > >>>probe b: 5 > >> > > 5 > > == 5 > > > > > > As you see ?? printed out the set-word! b: and returned 5, where > > probe printed 5 and returned 5. This suprise result that happens with > > ?? occurs becuase it the set-word b action does not happen until after ?? > > has returned its value--which is the set-word b. > > This discription is a little bit misleading: in the case of '?? b: is > printed, but 5 isn't returned by '??, 5 is returned because it didn't > get eaten, and was the last value on the line, as can be seen in this > extended example. > > >> b > ** Script Error: b has no value > ** Near: b > >> ?? b: 7 > b: > == 7 > >> b > ** Script Error: b has no value > ** Near: b > >> probe b: 7 > 7 > == 7 > >> b > == 7 > >> ?? b: > b: > == b: > >> ?? b > b: 7 > == 7 > > So, > 'probe can be used to print the value of _any_ expression, > '?? normally only makes sense with words, but you get the added > benefit of being told the name of the word. > > Kind regards, > > Ingo > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, without the quotes. -- Note: When sending me email directly, always make sure to include my name in the message, otherwise my aggressive spam filters may trash it. Ryan Cole * www.iesco-dms.com * 707-468-5400 -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
