🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <JWZ.90Sep28150050@kolyma.lucid.com> jwz@lucid.com (Jamie Zawinski) writes:
>In article <20829@well.sf.ca.us> shiva@well.sf.ca.us (Kenneth Porter) writes:
>Hmm, how would you do that?  I don't think
>
>	{ { currenttransfer exec 1 exch sub fade-factor mul 1 exch sub } 
>	  settransfer }
>
>will work, because currenttransfer is going to return the currently-executing
>procedure, leading to infinite recursion.  You could do something like
>
>	/saved-transfer currenttransfer def
>	{ { saved-transfer 1 exch sub fade-factor mul 1 exch sub }
>	  settransfer }
>
>but that doesn't seem especially foolproof.

  [ /currenttransfer load /exec cvx 1 /exch cvx /sub cvx fade-factor /mul cvx 
1 /exch  cvx /sub  cvx ] cvx settransfer ?

   I think that'll work .. the reason "currenttransfer" is load/exec'd
rather than just cvx'd is that otherwise it would be identical to the
first example up there, with infinite recursion... Or, you could do

  { currenttransfer 1 exch sub fade-factor mul 1 exch sub } bind settransfer

  in which the bind does about the same thing as building the proc as an
array did up there, except it binds *all* of it, not just the /currenttransfer.



-- 
 wiml@milton.acs.washington.edu       Seattle, Washington   
     (William Lewis)   |  47 41' 15" N   122 42' 58" W  
"These 2 cents will cost the net thousands upon thousands of 
dollars to send everywhere. Are you sure you want to do this?"