I guess I never thought about this, but it does make some sense...used this construct in script file to abbreviate a series of commands, expressions.
As I wrote, kind of embedded function, that can access local variables. It makes code shorter and more readable.
The "locals in the calling scope " are available the script in the (>[...]). Since the outer (>...) returns a function, and the in the inner [] that returns a code data-type. So using the (>[]) function essentially becomes "inlined" (NOT pushed to the call stack), thus the local variables are in scope. While the do={} does create a new scope (and function pushed to call stack), so locals in a parent scope are NOT available.
Perhaps the more simple example:
Code:
# version 1{ :local x 1 :local fn do={:put $x} $fn}# prints nothing, since $x is not in scope# version 2# vs, using (>[]) which creates a function that returns a code data-type, and prints "2"{ :local x2 2 :local fn2 (>[:put $x2]) $fn2}2Code:
# version 1(evl / (evl /localname=$x;value=1) (evl /localdo=;(evl (evl /putmessage=$x));name=$fn) (<%% $fn (> $fn)))# version 2(evl / (evl /localname=$x2;value=2) (evl /localname=$fn2;value=(> (evl (evl /putmessage=$x2)))) (<%% $fn2 (> $fn2)))Statistics: Posted by Amm0 — Sun Apr 06, 2025 8:25 pm