Consider this code:
obj: make object! [ x: <foo> code: copy/deep [ append last code [print x] () ] ] foreach x [1 2 3] obj/code ;-- FOR-EACH in Ren-C
Off the top of your head, what do you think that should output? Perhaps
1 2 2 3 3 3?
In Rebol2 and R3-Alpha, it outputs nothing. This might surprise you if you look at
obj/code after running the loop:
>> obj/code == [ append last code [print x] (print x print x print x) ]
So the prints were added. But the reason is that FOR-EACH doesn't use the block you gave it directly...it makes a rebound copy of it that points any x in the body to that iterating x, and runs that copy. So your modifications will affect
code, but not the deep copy of it FOR-EACH is running.
Red prints foo 6 times.
<foo> <foo> <foo> <foo> <foo> <foo>
That's because it doesn't create a new binding for x...it will overwrite whatever x was before the loop, and when it's over the x you had before will have been overwritten with whatever the state was in the last loop iteration.
I made this case a bit tricky by putting the code in a place where the x in the body would have a different binding than the x in the loop variable. That was just to make the point of what's going on. Red's argument is that it is too inefficient to pay for the copy and rebind of the body in the general case.
Making a new binding might not be the most important feature in the world. Not rebinding may be useful--in fact I added the behavior of not creating a new binding by using a LIT-WORD!, so
for-each 'x [1 2 3] [...] will act like Red does, just setting that x and leaving bindings alone.
UPDATE: This particular notation to achieve that feature was removed some time ago. The current concept is actually to always use the LIT-WORD! notation if not using a function as the body, see "Avoiding Having To Name Higher Order Function Variants". It still might be an interesting feature to use another notation for.
But what I don't like is the notion that if a new binding is what you wanted, that it would be too inefficient to accomplish. So if my object example seems contrived, what about this example, which has some parallels:
>> rule: ["a" (keep <found>)] == ["a" (keep <found>)] >> collect [parse "aaa" [some rule]] *** Script Error: keep has no value
I've been lumping various proposed solutions to this category problem under the label of "virtual binding". But the FOR-EACH case involves modification, which always throws a wrench into situations where you're trying to share data and avoid making copies.
How is mutability handled in other bindings?
specific binding was an early accomplishment of Ren-C. This allowed each invocation of a function to have words in its body point to a unique data value for that invocation of that function--but without needing to make a deep and rebound copy on each call (which had the only way to do it in R3-Alpha, e.g. CLOSURE). Instead it created a single copy of the body which had references to function arguments "relativized" by pointing to the archetypal function definition. Then each call would pair together a function instance frame with the relativized value--requiring the frame to be threaded through the stack to form fully resolved values.
Building upon that extremely major design change was derived binding, which similarly avoided making unnecessary copies. This time not deeply copying member functions of a base object when a derived instance was created. It's a bit more nuanced, but has been deployed and is working, which should impress people--if they were paying more attention.
Both of these methodologies have the advantage that ACTION! bodies in Ren-C are locked from modification. If they weren't, it wouldn't necessarily be clear what modifying them would mean. If you have a
func [x] and then one call inserts a reference to
x into the body...should other iterations of the function that fetch that word see their own x instance...or the specific x instance that was inserted? Or should the moment of insertion cause the system to bite the bullet and make a unique copy for that function instance--as the illusion of getting unique body copies for each instantiation had been shattered?
So far it's been easy enough to say you shouldn't change action bodies--and if you want to then you're on the hook for making that copy on each call yourself. People rarely need to do this, and it's better to make the more common case the one that performs better.
Next Step: Virtual Binding?
Virtual binding is yet another case of not wanting to copy and rebind code...but this one doesn't have the advantage of a "relativization pass" to prepare a code block in a way that makes it ready to reuse many times. It's trying to avoid making any copies at all, so looking at a simpler FOR-EACH:
for-each x [1 2 3] [ if x >= 2 [print x] ]
FOR-EACH creates a context containing just x. And its goal is to run the body--that it has "never seen before"--having the x references look up to its x (instead of whatever binding they have at the outset, if any).
Specific and derived binding hinge on a mechanism of augmenting a block at runtime with additional binding information. So that already exists to build on. But here we have an issue where there's no relationship set up between the x in the loop and the x in the body--other than having a common spelling. That relationship must be discovered (and possibly iteratively re-discovered) as we go.
The scenario we'd like to avoid is paying repeatedly for having
x looked up in some mapping structure as well as
There are options on the table. Maybe a block that gets virtually bound does make a relativized copy of a block, but caches it in case a matching relativization is used on it later. (This would be kind of like having the system automatically factor the code into a function for reuse--which would be the manual form of optimization people would use). Who knows.
But I guess one question to answer is if the FOR-EACH example that has a body that modifies itself is interesting or not. How would be people feel if it was read-only once it was virtually bound? If it's not read-only, what should happen with:
obj: make object! [ x: <foo> xx: 'x ] code: copy/deep [ append last code compose [print (obj/xx)] () ] for-each x [1 2 3] code
So there you have the case of after-the-fact
x's being slipped into the body which are bound into
obj. Should virtual binding pick it up, the way it would a before-the-fact
x bound into
In any case, some things to think about. I brought up the COLLECT/KEEP example and mention how ultimately, I think this all may point to a kind of "missing link" in Rebol, for threading contextual information through the call stack. (See also this post.)