Yes @moliad but first/second/third or obj/1 ../2 /3 is a method you could apply to object content. In fact in rebol you could use it on the third element of an object. (i.e.: probe first third obj)
The key distinction here is intended use. Maps and objects are based on unorderd key-value slots, blocks are based on ordered slots. This is an important distinction. While this is not laid out in a design spec, it tells you that it is safe to use blocks based on their order, but that it's not safe to do so with maps and objects. That is, a block will always return values in the same order, but a different implementation of map/object might change the internal order of things, and return them in a different order in response to words-of/values-of.
foreach, as @nedzadarek showed, it is special, along with
repeat, If you use
function rather than
_function/collect-deep are responsible for that special handling.
This is a workaround for now, but a fairly effective one in most cases. Not perfect, but better than nothing.
_functionis the context name in the
set-word!local (adds it to the
f: function [a: 1] ; == func [/local a][a: 1])
foo: 42) won't make a word local (
f: function  [set 'a 1] ; == func [set 'a 1]<-
functioncollect that word (wrong - to be more precise) ->
f: function  [foreach w [1 2 3][ print w]] ;== func [/local w][foreach w [1 2 3] [print w]]
_function/collect-deepfrom within Red (console? compiled?)
setworks the way it does by design. It allows you to externalize a word without having to use
/extern, so it will not change. And you really don't want to mod things in the bowels of the langauge, even if you can, because that will create all sorts of problems when sharing code and staying compatible with language changes.
It allows you to externalize a word without having to use /extern
set (or other "functions") in the
f: function  [parse [a] [set z word!] z] z; a)? It wasn't my intention to externalize a word by using
Could you change that kind of functions (or introduce others) in the
parse to be "local"?
No idea what "create some words" means. Parse doesn't create them in any way,
but have I specifically chosen that function so it behaves this way? Yes.
Fixed it for you. There's plenty of functionality to make it work the way you want, but you seem to ignore all of it so as to strengthen your argument.
>> f: func [/local z][parse [a][set z skip]] :. >> f: does [parse [a] bind [set z skip] context [z: none]] :.
You can even intercept
copy within callback function and aggregate their arguments for further post-processing.
callback: func [event match? rule input stack][ also yes if all [match? find [set copy] rule/1][ append words rule/2 ] ] probe unique also words:  parse/trace [a b c][ ahead [copy a [3 word!]] ahead [set b skip] copy c [2 skip] set d to end ] :callback unset words
copy can support paths the way Rebol does, but that will cause a slight decline in perfomance. red/red#3528
What was it with your "no choice" once again..?
(...)for arguments. It works in your case, because your function has just one argument and parenthesis evaluate all values and return last. So
(3)in your case becomes
3. But if you'll have function with more than one arg, it won't work.