'''`[info] body`''' ''`procname`''

Returns the body of ''`procname`'', which must be the name of a [Tcl
procedure%|%procedure].


jkock 2006-09-22: If the proc has been imported from another
namespace, then it is the body of that proc that is returned.  This can
lead to considerable confusion in relation with variable names, allowing
a situation where a proc defined with the body returned from info body P
will not behave in the same way as P itself!

Consider this example:

======
namespace eval x {
    variable q 123
    proc ww {} {
        variable q
        return $q
    }
    namespace export ww
}

namespace eval i {
    variable q 456
    namespace import -force ::x::ww
}
======

Now let us test the proc i::ww and see if we can understand it:

======none
% i::ww
123
% info body i::ww

    variable q
    return $q

% set i::q
456
======

Quite mysterious, if we didn't know that `i::ww` was defined by
[namespace import].

I don't know if this behaviour should be considered a bug, you just have to be
careful, and always do `[namespace origin]` before doing `[info body]`...

----

[wdb]: If you import a proc, it always "remembers" where it comes from. You can test it with `[namespace origin]`:

======none
% namespace origin ::i::ww
::x::ww
======

The imported proc `::i::ww` behaves as a link to `::x::ww`.

But, if you `[rename]`  `::x::ww` to `::i::ww`, then it really returns the value of `::i::q`. So, since its behaviour is understood, it isn't strange any more, is it?

----

jkock 2006-09-22: in reply to wdb>Thanks for explaining what I already indicated in the last sentence.

I don't understand what you want to say with the '''rename''' example.  What it is meant to explain or justify?

[wdb]: It was not my intent to annoy you. -- My example does not explain but illustrate how the proc behaves: if it is [rename%|%renamed] to `::i::ww`, then it behaves as if it were ''originally defined'' in namespace ''::i''. Obviously, it is always aware of its name.

For an ''explanation'' of the behaviour, I'd to look at the [C] sources. But, I am not willed to learn C. (That's one reason of my decision for Tcl).

----

jkock: OK, thanks.  Within a few days I'll replace our discussion with a summary that sounds like it was written like that in the first place.
(I agree with your viewpoint about C  --- long live Tcl!)
Cheers.

** See Also **

   [info]:   

   [Playing newLISP]:   stooopid `info body` tricks.


<<categories>> Command | Tcl syntax help