Need help on something tricky...

== "this is the value of my-string"

== "this is the value of my-string" Now how could I use it this way instead ? my-string: bind-word-to "this is the value" I know the question or example may seem stupid, but it is 1) something I don't know how to do, 2) something very useful in what I'm trying to attain, ie user/developer simplicity for my library Best, Chris

This isn't the best answer, but think about this until someone else reads this.... (my wife is telling me to get my butt away from the computer) f: func[arg[word!]][print rejoin["the value of " arg " is " get arg]

the value of t is 4

-- Tim Johnson <[tim--johnsons-web--com]> http://www.johnsons-web.com

There's no sensible or easy way to that. How about instead: MyValues: reduce [ 'my-string "this is the value" ] and then sequencing through the block like: foreach [Word Value] MyValues [ set Word Value ] Would that do what you want? Andrew Martin Writing Rebol Dialects... ICQ: 26227169 New Site Coming soon!

I have to admit my first post wasn't clear, I'm tired these days (working from 9:30 to 18:00 at the job, 19:00 to 2:00 on Rebol is not good for my health ;). Ok, here's what I meant : Let's say you have found a way to do class-object-inheritance under Rebol. This is of course a speculation ;) You would prefer other developers who are using your library to write it like : new-class: make-class [ p: "This is a property" m: func [] [print self/p] ] which is quite similar to the current implementation of make instead of : make-class 'new-class [ p: "This is a property" m: func [] [print self/p] ] So far this would be simple... however, let's say I want to make sure the class-name is somehow integrated within the object and the end-result would look like :

== make object! [ class-name: 'new-class p: "This is a property" m: func [] [print self/p] ] I don't necessary want the developper to add "manually" this class-name property... and I can't really trust the developper to do so ;) Now I would need a way to know the receiver of the class while generating the class! and the only way I can think of is the make-class 'new-class [] This is what I meant, maybe I didn't understand your example though... Best, Chris (who's really working on something like this, but as of yet not tested enough)

No and yes, of course what you present would work, it would work knowing that your receiver would be MyValues... but in my case I don't know... See response to Tim on what I'm trying to achieve... You really need to see this as a library that others will use for developping rebol code, you don't know which receiver (variables-name) they'll use... (I knew I wasn't clear with that first post ;)) Best, Chris

developping rebol code, you don't know which receiver (variables-name) they'll use... For my library code, I do (using %eText.r as an example): rebol [] make object! [ ; hidden words & values that only the below function can access: set 'eText func [Text [string!]][ ] ] and it's used like this: do %eText.r eText read %text.txt Andrew Martin ICQ: 26227169 http://valley.150m.com/

Would a member function like: New: does [make self []] be helpful? Andrew Martin ICQ: 26227169 http://valley.150m.com/

Yes and no, unfortunately, the way "make" works under rebol is to clone everything from properties to methods. Try the following : a: make object! [ p: "nice string" m: func [] [return self/p] ] b: make a []

== make object! [ p: "nice string" m: func [] [return self/p] ]

== make object! [ p: "nice string" m: func [] [return self/p] ] now change the following: a/p: "nasty string" a/m: func [] [return "nope, this shouldn't be"] probe a probe b

== make object! [ p: "nasty string" m: func [] [return "nope, this shouldn't be"] ]

== make object! [ p: "nice string" m: func [] [return self/p] ] You would expect p to remain "nice string" in b, but since m was inherited from a, you would have expected m to have changed in b too... somehow, since a was class for b... however class doesn't exist under rebol. Now let's say you design something big, with let's say 100 objects based on one class... you would get all properties into each object, which is good, but you would also get all functions (methods)... now as you can see, RT did it this way because it somehow make sense when you consider it's a scripting language BUT you get all of these different objects using a lot of memory. The way I've implemented my library may eventually be very bad-looking... it may add a lot of overhead. However, it will use less memory. In your example : does [return make self []]... it will actually return a new object based on self. However, everything will be copied. So far, I've implemented the following methods : make (class declaration), make/from (class inheritance), new (object declaration) and type-of (object vs class validation)... I'm about to implement super... after that I have to test every possible datatype within an object. Class within class within class will end up being object within object within object... this is all through recursivity (how many time can I go recursive without having Rebol hanging on me ?) Btw, I noticed you were working on a dice roller on the mailing list, I actually wrote something if you're interested. I always write a dice-roller as my first software for all language I learn. In fact, the reasons I'm writing this class-object thing is to build a rpg software. Best, Chris