|
From: | Hans Nowak |
Subject: | [Chicken-users] Re: A few questions |
Date: | Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:11:43 -0500 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Macintosh/20070326) |
Kon Lovett wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008, at 11:08 AM, Hans Nowak wrote:> (get-docstring foo) "docstring for foo"Yes, but not with a documented interface. The procedure '(##sys#decorate-lambda proc pred decorator)' can create arbitrary "decorations" for a procedure. Then, '(##sys#lambda-decoration proc pred)' can retrieve it.Let me look into this.
I saw these procedures in the source, but haven't figured out how to use them yet. :-(
Anyway, I have another question: when you define a function, how much "introspection" is possible? E.g. from another thread ("Runtime arity") I learned that it's possible to get the function's signature. Is there also a way to get e.g. the function's body? (My guess is, probably not, but I thought I'd ask.)No. Why do you want it?
No real reason, at least not at this moment; I was just trying to get an idea of how "introspective" Chicken is. Like, in Python you can get *some* information about a defined function (like its signature, bytecode, etc), and in languages like Io you can get the actual source. I figured that it would at least be technically possible to get this kind of info. I don't have a real purpose for it at this moment though. :-}
--Hans
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |