>  > Unless it's done consistently and properly documented. The current
>  > situation is no more consistent on this point, with its mixture of
>  > pass-by-value and pass-by-name conventions.
>  
>  It is! Everything is pass-by-value (pass-by-name is something else  
>  entirely). Some commands expect values directly for some arguments  
>  and variable names for other arguments. They never expect either for  
>  the same argument.

Um, I think the inconsistency being mentioned is this:

	set n [gets $f buf]

You just have to know that gets wants one value ($f) and one name (buf).
You are correct, they are both passed by value, but gets does an implicit
upvar on buf so it is sort of a reference.

Lots and lots of people get bit by this in tcl and you really do have to 
go memorize which ones do what.  It's quite annoying.  In my opinion,
a little syntatic sugar like

	set n [gets $f &buf]

would be mucho nicer.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft 
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Tcl-Core mailing list
Tcl-Core@[...].net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tcl-core