World: r3wp

you really think he meant you?  you're giving yourself to much importance 
 ;-p

Did you noticed that too ?

I did actually hehehe

About set-block and get-block.

If it's only to save the use of SET and REDUCE, i think it's a little 
luxurious.

It would have to work like set-word!s for contexts, to have more 
meaning. Could save a line of code.

I don't see your point Henrik, can u give an example

context [
	foo: fum: none
	set [foo fum] 3
]


'foo and 'fum stays in context with the NONE line. Without it, they 
don't.

...
it's not a good example ;-)
i do this, context [foo: fum: 3]

whoops, I meant like the get-block example above.

set [foo fum] [3 5]

could also reduce the size of some object specifications:

ret-value: [test 7]

make object! [
	[fnc arg]: :ret-value
]

you can with R3
>> set c: construct [a: b:] [3 5]
== [3 5]

>> c
== make object! [
    a: 3
    b: 5
]

or more generally: it can occur often that you need to set multiple 
words sequentially. there should be a syntax for that.

steeve, contexts usually contain much more than that, so CONSTRUCT 
is very limiting here.

it works with CONTEXT too

set c: context [a: b: none] [3 5]

same problem

To me EEBOL is about syntax, and the get block set block idea seems 
very interesting.

what happens when you say:

[a [b c]: d]: [1 [2 3] 4]

very rebolish, but is that very usefull ?

its just like op vs function notation to me...
z: ADD x y 
vs 
z: x + y

I'm not sure it is. :-) but many things don't seem very useful on 
the surface. I'm still thinking in terms of setting mulitple words 
with multiple values in one operation. I hate picking words out of 
a block, one at a time. It becomes more powerful when you replace 
the blocks with words. Then you can use the same program structure 
to set one-to-many, one-to-one, many-to-one and many-to-many words.

yep... like :

z: [b c] 
[a :z d]: [1 [2 3] 4]

rough

if z s a word, IT gets assigned [1 2]  if z is a get-word, its content 
is assigned to the content [1 2], so in the above, b and c would 
be 1 and 2 respectively.

but then:

z: [b c]

:z: [3 4]

or what? :-)

i would prefer another syntax to assign the content instead of the 
container

z:: [3 4]

double :

not bad eh ?

well, its the current syntax  :z already means what I contain.

double colon makes no sense... what are you assigning to z?  a new 
datatype?

but Henrik's  :z:  has me puzzled here:

[a :z: d]: [1 [2 3] 4]

what would the above mean?  hehe

(in current form  of syntax)

and what is your :z: ?
a new datatype too, much more confusing to my mind

no :z already exists.   if z where a function, it returns the function 
itself, not its evaluation.

get words returns the content of the word without evaluating them.

i don't speak about that

but :z:

that is a new datatype, a GET-SET

ahhh... sorry, didn't see the last colon.

it already exists too!

no

it does in path notation.  its also silently ignored in the command 
line as long as the get-set word actually holds a word within  :-)

>> y: 'c
>> probe :y: func [][print "2"]
>> c

but it should assign the function to c... its logical actually.

in a path, it works though.

but in plain REBOL, it has to be a new datatype

the path evaluation use another one scheme

not, it should just do like in the path notation, get the value of 
the word, and set to that value .

n