13 refinements seems excessive to me, but anyway
I know this thorny problem. Which native are you
wrapping?
I suggest building a path to the native.
>From an old thread in June with subject: "Re: problems creating a path",
I grabbed the flag-val function:
flag-val: func [flag val][either flag [val][]]
to-path compose [hello (flag-val none 'there) (flag-val true 'someone)]
;== hello/someone
Let's wrap the layout function as an example:
my-layout: func [
specs
/size pane-size
/offset where
][
do probe compose [
(to-path compose [
layout
(flag-val size 'size)
(flag-val offset 'offset)
]) (reduce [specs])
(flag-val size pane-size)
(flag-val offset where)
]
]
; test
view my-layout [box green] ; no refinements
view my-layout/size [box green] 90x90 ; one refinement
view my-layout/offset [box green] 190x190 ; the other refinement
view my-layout/size/offset [box green] 90x90 190x190 ; both refinements
view my-layout/offset/size [box green] 190x190 90x90 ; order reversed
Anton.
> the subject might be misleading, I'm not sure how to formulate it.
>
> I'm this must have been discussed before.
>
> What I wish to do is propagate my arguments to another func with
> the same arg template, including refinements. example:
>
> a: func [arg1 arg2 /option val][
> print "yahoo"
> ]
>
> b: func third :a [
> ; insert code here
> print "yes sir!"
>
> either option [
> a arg1 arg2 /option val
> ][
> a arg1 arg2
> ]
> ]
>
>
> now in b I don't want the 'EITHER, cause every other refinement
> adds a binary amount of possible combination. The function I
> have has 13 refinements... 106496 different combinations..
>
> the function I must "improve" is a native, so I can't just source
> it and re-implement it. I really need to add some stuff before
> it, and then let it do its stuff with all the refinements as if
> it had been called directly...
>
>
> what's the best/fastest course of action?
>
>
> THANKS IN ADVANCE!
>
>
> -MAx
--
To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
