Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!decwrl!adobe!heaven!heaven.woodside.ca.us
From: glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: Bind is a travesty
Message-ID: <486@heaven.woodside.ca.us>
Date: 4 May 91 21:28:45 GMT
References: <1991Apr29.073421.2622@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us
Lines: 42

Tomas G. Rokicki writes

> I have often expressed the opinion that `bind' was the greatest disservice
> to the computing community Adobe has ever made.  The attached file will
> illustrate why.
>
> *Any* free variables caught point out a potential problem; too many
> outer definitions show another possible problem.

With great respect, Tom, I have no idea what you're getting at.  Please
explain what is wrong with "bind".

Is it just that you can't redefine a name after the fact?

> My diatribe against bind is available upon request.

Rather than posting the entire diatribe, try to summarize what is wrong
with it for us curious types.  I've never seen it cause any particular
trouble.

> %   A bind problem is a case where the `bind' function is used
> %   on `free' variables:
> %
> %      /test { x y add } bind def
> %
> %   may not work correctly if the document is included in an environment
> %   where `x' is defined on the dictionary stack.

If `x' is defined but is not an operator, "bind" leaves it alone, as it
should.  In your example, only "add" would be affected by the "bind"
operation, unless for some reason "x" or "y" was a name that pointed
directly to an operator object.  What exactly is the problem?

Also, what brand of PS interpreter are you using, just to calibrate?

Curiously,
Glenn

--
 Glenn Reid				RightBrain Software
 glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us		NeXT/PostScript developers
 ..{adobe,next}!heaven!glenn		415-326-2974 (NeXTfax 326-2977)