Symbols as parameters?

[Carl Banks]

On Jan 21, 10:46 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <al... at start.no> wrote:
> * Carl Banks:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 21, 2:38 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <al... at start.no> wrote:
> >> * 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).
>
> > Your example doesn't remotely do what the OP was asking for.  In fact
> > your example is so preposterous I question your sanity.
>
> Your first sentence is incorrect, your second sentence is a silly attempt at
> getting personal.
>
> >> However, it's IMHO an abuse of the language, not something that one should do.
>
> > Usually people abuse the language to achieve something (ostensibly)
> > useful.  Your example is so useless I don't think I would even call it
> > abuse.
>
> You are correct that it's useless. The OP asked for a construct to do a useless
> thing. The presented construct does exactly what the OP asked for: useless.
>
> > As best as I can tell, what it is is you attempting to make yourself
> > look like some kind of badass by answering some absurdly literal
> > interpretation of the OP's question.
>
> Hm, there are ways to do things, even the ad hominem thing. You just present
> yourself as one using strong words when you're proven wrong. Myself I'm not
> foreign to strong words :-), but I wouldn't dream of applying them to a person.
>
> The above is very, uh, primitive.
>
> Besides, it's quite silly to get angry when you're proved to be wrong. :-)
>
> > Except you haven't even done that:
>
> > class using_directions:
> >     up = 42
> >     move( up )
> >     print up # <- clearly not confined to context of function call
>
> You know, I didn't think of that ingenious thing, that it would be possible to
> *modify* the example so that it no longer fit the OP's literal description. Thx!

I'm not sure if you're trolling, insane, or just stupid; regardless,
I'm done with you.


Carl Banks