Symbols as parameters?

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Diez B. Roggisch:
> Am 21.01.10 20:01, schrieb Alf P. Steinbach:
>> * Diez B. Roggisch:
>>> Am 21.01.10 19:48, schrieb Alf P. Steinbach:
>>>> * Diez B. Roggisch:
>>>>> Am 21.01.10 12:58, schrieb Alf P. Steinbach:
>>>>>> * Stefan Behnel:
>>>>>>> Alf P. Steinbach, 21.01.2010 11:38:
>>>>>>>> * Carl Banks:
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 11:43 pm, Martin Drautzburg <Martin.Drautzb... at web.de>
>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>> What I am really looking for is a way
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - to be able to call move(up)
>>>>>>>>>> - having the "up" symbol only in the context of the function
>>>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>>> Short answer is, you can't do it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the contrary, it's not difficult to do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I provided an example in my answer to the OP (first reply in the
>>>>>>>> thread).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Erm, no, you didn't. You showed a) how to pass a string constant
>>>>>>> into a
>>>>>>> function and b) how to pass a value from a bound variable. None of
>>>>>>> that is
>>>>>>> helpful to the OP's problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps look again at that example. It demonstrates exactly what
>>>>>> the OP
>>>>>> asks for.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps look again at the requirements:
>>>>>
>>>>> """
>>>>> - the parameter IS REALLY NOT A STRING, but a direction
>>>>> """
>>>>
>>>> So?
>>>
>>> Oh please. You claim you provided exactly what the OP asked for. But
>>> in the body of move, all you can do is to compare the direction
>>> parameter tco "up", not to UP. So no, you provided *something*, but
>>> not what the OP asked for.
>>
>> Pardon me for not taking you seriously or not getting the joke, if
>> that's what it's meant as.
> 
> No joking, unless you started it somewhere earlier. The OP didn't want 
> to compare to a string, yet your "example" forces him to exactly do 
> that. If not, would you care to show us the fulfillment of "the 
> parameter IS REALLY NOT A STRING, but a direction" in your example? Thanks.

Just use a "direction" instead of a number (if you didn't like the number).

I'm sorry that I couldn't believe that you didn't understand that.

But OK, you didn't.

The OP gave no definition of his "direction" though, so you'll have to use your 
good sense about possibilities for what it could be.

 From the context and later comments (especially about "import") my guess us 
that he's talking about numbers denoting directions, but you'd have to ask him.


> You see, it seems that you agreeing to be wrong is something your are so 
> adamantly refusing to acknowledge that I'm inclined to believe that in 
> the event of this really happen one day, a great rift in the very fabric 
> of space and time would appear, and the world would end. If this 
> conversation was in my native language and not in yours, I'd might give 
> it a shot, just to see what really happens. But as it isn't, and I guess 
> everybody else except you knows that your wrong - I wont.

The above is a silly ad hominem attack, containing 1 lie, and trying to confuse 
the issue: you're posting this in a different part of the thread as a response 
to Carls Banks being proved wrong by my example. Incidentally, he also resorts 
to ad hominem. Sadly it seems to be a common response pattern in this group.

Do you understand how bad that makes you look?


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf