🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8301@milton.u.washington.edu> wiml@milton.u.washington.edu (William Lewis) writes:
>
> [ /currenttransfer load /exec cvx 1 /exch cvx /sub cvx fade-factor /mul cvx 
>   1 /exch  cvx /sub  cvx ] cvx settransfer ?
[ ... ]
>  { 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.

Hmm... I think both of these are equivalent to my second example, 

>	/saved-transfer currenttransfer def
>	{ { saved-transfer 1 exch sub fade-factor mul 1 exch sub }
>	  settransfer }

which now that I think about it some more, I don't think has any problems.
To be extra careful, you could do

	{ /--dummy-- 1 exch sub fade-factor mul 1 exch sub }
	dup 0 currenttransfer put
	bind settransfer

assuming I don't have "put"'s arguments in the wrong order.

 -- Jamie