I have the following code:
Definition: a thing is twiddled if I6 routine "Twiddle" makes it so (it no longer untwiddled).
To twiddle (T - thing) (this is twiddling):
say "[The T] is now twiddled."
[ Twiddle o set;
! do low-level things
((+ twiddling +)-->1)(o);
! do more things
Is there a more readable way of calling an I7 phrase within an I6 inclusion? I would rather not use the -->1.
Alternatively, is there an I7 equivalent to “makes it so”?
Named phrases are actually arrays with three elements, with the second referencing the actual function. The -->1 isn’t the ugliest thing in I6!
Why do you want to do it that way however? If the phrase you’re using will never change, why not just write it in I6 rather than I7?
Well, I guess I can live with it if I must.
I wanted to do it this way because (1) the I7 phrase is simpler than its I6 counterpart, and (2) I want see to how I7 works.
There is no pure I7 way of writing a “Definition… makes it so…” statement. (I assume you want to provide ways to test and set some abstract value.) There are of course many ways to set up an I7 adjective that is both testable and settable.
I didn’t even know you could do that. I usually use a rule instead of a phrase for those situations.