BODY-OF command! does not give anything interesting

[Siskin-Bot]

Submitted by: meijeru

BODY-OF is defined for all values of type any-function!. In the case of command! values, it yields the same as the get-word. It should, in my opinion, give the actual value of the body as stored in the machine, which is a block containing the extension module in which the command was defined, and the command-index (ordinal of the command, 0-origin).

>> probe body-of :deref
make command! [["Get 32 bits value pointed at" v]]
>> probe :deref
make command! [["Get 32 bits value pointed at" v]]

---

^{Imported from: CureCode [ Version: alpha 97 Type: Bug Platform: All Category: Datatype Reproduce: Always Fixed-in:alpha 98 ]
Imported from: metaeducation#1578}

Comments:

Rebolbot commented on Apr 26, 2010:

Submitted by: Carl

BODY-OF has no meaning for native functions and should return NONE. Note that commands can also be user-defined functions (to allow interpretation within DELECT command dialects such as remote services, etc.) and in that case should return the same result as a function!.

Retrieval of information such as extension module or index is not the same as body, and if needed, can be returned by some other reflector option.

---

Rebolbot commented on Apr 26, 2010:

Submitted by: meijeru

I do not agree with your last statement (that a different reflector is needed). The extension module (which contains the RIX pointer) and the command-index, are the nearest you will have to a body. Also, for actions, a number is returned by body-of; or are you proposing to do away with that also?

---

Rebolbot commented on Apr 26, 2010:

Submitted by: BrianH

Those index numbers aren't the closest thing actions and commands have to a body - that would be the native code, and we don't want to return that. The index numbers are something else, so another reflector would probably be appropriate.

---

Rebolbot mentioned this issue on Jan 12, 2016:
SPEC-OF the type testing functions contains revealing internal information

---

Rebolbot added the Type.bug on Jan 12, 2016

---