World: r3wp

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

no, the path evaluation scheme uses a string parser

a path is a string in memory

the rules are differents

I think I see what you mean when you say a new datatype...  yes, 
it would be a get-set word, but the path notation already makes it 
clear how that should work... and I've used it often

so semantically its nothing new.  but in the context of the above 
multi-assign, I concur that the meaning becomes a bit obscure.

yes but it's not transposable as-is in plain rebol

it has to be a new datatype

just as get-word and set-word are different datatypes.  this is just 
the combination of both actually, code wise, its probably a one hour 
affaire for Carl, maybe even less.

if he thinks it's valuable, i think it's easy to do too

posted a note about it in R3 chat... just to see his reaction  :-)

a: [x y]
b: 'a
:b: [22 33]
== x: 22
== y: 33

probably a flame :)

hehe

Geomol, I wrote MAP-EACH and APPLY functions for R2/Forward - both 
required code generation by the function.