Path: news.cs.au.dk!not-for-mail From: Atle Newsgroups: comp.lang.beta Subject: Am I missing something obvious Date: 23 Oct 2000 11:13:33 -0000 Organization: University of Aarhus, Department of Computer Science (DAIMI) Lines: 39 Approved: mailtonews@cs.au.dk Distribution: world Message-ID: <20001023111333.18034.qmail@noatun.mjolner.dk> Reply-To: Atle NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.au.dk X-Trace: gjallar.cs.au.dk 972299685 5667152 130.225.16.1 (23 Oct 2000 11:14:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@cs.au.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 11:14:45 +0000 (UTC) Xref: news.cs.au.dk comp.lang.beta:12606 I have been (sucessfully :-) creating lots of little Beta-programs now for a while. Sweet little thingies, but not doing much useful work :-) So, before embarking on the great Bet-hack, I wanted to read the Betabook again. And then I saw lots of things that I had forgotten: sample: (# i, j : @INTEGER; proc: (# ENTER j DO j +1 -> i EXIT i #) #) Not very useful, but I see that the Betabook call the proc like this 1 -> &sample.proc and explains that the & executes the proc patterns, and had I used &proc[] then it would not have been executed, but created and a reference returned. I find this completely logical and OK. But, I went back to my sample programs, and noticed that I had forgotten the & in front of every procedure and function pattern I had written, and they all work as expected. So my question is: Have I overlooked somethng obvious? Are my programs wrong, and if they are, why do they work? I know this is a potentially idiotic question, but I have gathered the courage for weeks now to ask it, so please be kind :-) -- Best wishes, Atle users.skynet.be/atle