Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.lang.postscript > #4003
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.postscript |
| Subject | Re: PostScript Ideas Worth Resurrecting |
| Date | 2024-03-26 20:15 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <utvad5$2b27a$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <us12kp$2bna6$1@dont-email.me> <3f1e7e13-10d3-4952-bc00-d10a5a1d4e40@davidnewall.com> <uttpe5$1l948$3@dont-email.me> |
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 06:19:49 -0000 (UTC), I wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 16:11:07 +1100, David Newall wrote:
>
>> On 3/3/24 16:42, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> But these “function” objects do have some deficiencies: no (simple)
>>> support for reentrant local variables, and no lexical binding. Fix
>>> these up, and you have a much more useful language.
>>
>> % p1 p2 p3 f - % demonstrate local variables and recursive parameters
>> /f {
>> 6 dict begin
>> /p3 exch def
>> /p2 exch def
>> /p1 exch def
>> /l1 (value) def
>> /l2 (value) def
>> /l3 (value) def ...
>> end
>> } def
>>
>> No?
>
> Notice I said “reentrant”?
Sorry, that is of course reentrant. But it does dynamic binding, not
lexical.
Back to comp.lang.postscript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar
PostScript Ideas Worth Resurrecting Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-03 05:42 +0000
Re: PostScript Ideas Worth Resurrecting David Newall <ghostscript@davidnewall.com> - 2024-03-26 16:11 +1100
Re: PostScript Ideas Worth Resurrecting Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-26 06:19 +0000
Re: PostScript Ideas Worth Resurrecting Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-03-26 20:15 +0000
csiph-web