Hi Bruce,
Ideally &source should always be the co-expression that activated you. You
should report this as a potential bug, and include at least the source
code, even if the output is too large to include. Management of &source is
not exactly complicated and kind of difficult to mess up, so I guess we
will have to stare closely at your code on this one to see what it is doing.
Cheers,
Clint
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Bruce & Breeanna Rennie <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Trying it without the attachments as they are apparently too large
>
> regards
>
> Bruce Rennie
>
>
> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Testing co-expressions as
> lambda functions - strange &source values Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013
> 01:49:37 +1100 From: Bruce & Breeanna Rennie
> <[email protected]><[email protected]> To:
> [email protected]
>
> In attempting to generate a standardised format for creating lambda
> functions in Unicon, I have come across something that I think may be
> anomalous.
>
> I call a function where one of the parameters is an expression block
> that results in a co-expression. The co-expression is set up to create
> another sequence of co-expressions that will act in a similar manner to
> lambda functions. This is based on the code to be found in The Generator
> Vol2 Number 2 - Co-expressions as Closures.
>
> What I am finding is that when the inner co-expressions are activated
> from &main, the &source is the original generating co-expression not
> &main. The Unicon Book states that the &source should be the activating
> co-expression (in this cas it is &main and not the generating
> co-expression. Do I have this correct and if so is this a bug that I
> need to report?
>
> I am manually changing the saved source co-expression to be &main and
> not the value that is in &source.
>
> version of Unicon I am using is Unicon Version 12.1. August 06, 2012
> which I have compiled from svn extract.
>
> I have attached both the source used and a copy of the output obtained.
>
> What I am creating is a generalised version that I can mechanically add
> when and where I need it. It is not pretty code and I am sure that there
> is a better way to do this. Incorporated into the code is a facility to
> allow static scoping between the inner and outer co-expressions.
>
> regards
>
> Bruce Rennie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Master HTML5, CSS3, ASP.NET, MVC, AJAX, Knockout.js, Web API and
> much more. Get web development skills now with LearnDevNow -
> 350+ hours of step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts.
> SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122812
> _______________________________________________
> Unicon-group mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unicon-group
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Master HTML5, CSS3, ASP.NET, MVC, AJAX, Knockout.js, Web API and
much more. Get web development skills now with LearnDevNow -
350+ hours of step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts.
SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122812
_______________________________________________
Unicon-group mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unicon-group
