World: r3wp

So, if you want to be sure to clone your object and every field, 
you will have to check every field to see if it is an object and 
clone it too.

that's a bit painful ... guess why I never used objects much before.

Yes, sharing is handy but not when you don't want it. :)

Quick hack, Graham:
test: make object! [ a: b: none  c: make object! [ d: none]]
obj: make first reduce load mold test [ c/d: "testing"]

x: [ 2 4 6 ]
y: [  x/1 ]

how do i get the value from y/1 ? I know this is perhpas very newbe 
but once every year I always run into this and can figure it out...

reduce y/1 gives me x/1 but I want 2.. Im missing somekind of  'eval 
y/1 ...

do y/1

no that gives me also x/1

it works fine here?

not here..

>> x: [ 1 2 3 ]
== [1 2 3]
>> y: [ x/1 ]
== [x/1]
>> do y/1
== x/1
>> x: [ 1 2 3 ]
== [1 2 3]
>> y: [ x/1 ]
== [x/1]
>> do y/1
== x/1

odd ...

>> x: [2 4 6]
== [2 4 6]
>> y: [ x/1 ]
== [x/1]
>> y/1
== x/1
>> do y/1
== 2

try a fresh console, I've done it successfully on mac with view 1.3.2 
and winXP with view 2.7.0

your kidding me... Could that be a problem ?

well, if some variable has been changed.

do on paths was added in 1.3.1 or something i think.

hmm... it could be that it evaluates as a path

mmm nope no effect ->
>> x: [ 2 4 6 ]
== [2 4 6]
>> y: [ x/1 ]
== [x/1]
>> y/1
== x/1
>> do y/1
== x/1
>>

rebolinth, system/version ?

REBOL/Core 2.5.6.4.2

use 2.6 :)

otherwise you need to  do y   or  do reduce [y/1]

Mmmmmmmm all that brain cracking the whole day .... in 2.6 its working...

Thanks...I finaly can finish my Brain-Game ;-)

Anyone built an xml to rebol object utility?

I'm talking about well formed xml, no attributes involved.

No matter, xml-to-object works fine.

Please do not run this in REBOL console. Instead I want you to tell 
me what you expect as a result:

unset 'a a/x: (a: 1x2 3)

i'd expect an error.

I would probably expect 'a/x to be 3

depends if it checks whether the path exists or not before the () 
part is evaluated

...and what you expect in case:

a: 1x2 a/x: (a: [x 4] 3)

or:

    a: 1x2 a/x: (unset 'a 3)

a = [x 3]

I'd expect path error.

generally spoken, the "post-check" checking after the () part is 
evaluated looks safer (IMO)

so, interpreter should evaluate the argument first, then the set-path?

if implemented the other way around, it is unsafe (IMO again)

but:

>> f: func [/x] [print "huh"]
>> f/x
huh
>> f/x:
huh

so... what happens with a/x: (a: func ...) ?

it would be evaluated out of order.

(if a was already func that is)

My proposal is, that

f: func [/x] [print "huh"]
f/x: 1

should be an error (cannot use set-path on a function)

OTOH,

    f: func [/x] [print "huh"]
    f/x: (f: 1x2 3)

should behave differently

it's mainly a matter of wheter it is more natural for the set-path 
to be evaluated first or last.

the trouble is, that only the second variant may be safe (IMO)

, because the first variant relies on information, that may be "invalid"

I will put these to RAMBO, do you agree?

I agree