r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[!REBOL3-OLD1]

Steeve
21-Aug-2009
[16892]
and what is your :z: ?
a new datatype too, much more confusing to my mind
Maxim
21-Aug-2009
[16893x2]
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.
Steeve
21-Aug-2009
[16895x3]
i don't speak about that
but :z:
that is a new datatype, a GET-SET
Maxim
21-Aug-2009
[16898x2]
ahhh... sorry, didn't see the last colon.
it already exists too!
Steeve
21-Aug-2009
[16900]
no
Maxim
21-Aug-2009
[16901x3]
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.
Steeve
21-Aug-2009
[16904x2]
but in plain REBOL, it has to be a new datatype
the path evaluation use another one scheme
Maxim
21-Aug-2009
[16906]
not, it should just do like in the path notation, get the value of 
the word, and set to that value .
Steeve
21-Aug-2009
[16907x4]
n
no, the path evaluation scheme uses a string parser
a path is a string in memory
the rules are differents
Maxim
21-Aug-2009
[16911x2]
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.
Steeve
21-Aug-2009
[16913x2]
yes but it's not transposable as-is in plain rebol
it has to be a new datatype
Maxim
21-Aug-2009
[16915]
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.
Steeve
21-Aug-2009
[16916]
if he thinks it's valuable, i think it's easy to do too
Maxim
21-Aug-2009
[16917x2]
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
Steeve
21-Aug-2009
[16919]
probably a flame :)
Maxim
21-Aug-2009
[16920]
hehe
BrianH
21-Aug-2009
[16921x3]
Geomol, I wrote MAP-EACH and APPLY functions for R2/Forward - both 
required code generation by the function.
Pekr, your disdain of install and user directories will fail on systems 
that are locked down for corporate or public use - too insecure.
Steeve, Maxim, you guys are hilarious :)
Steeve
21-Aug-2009
[16924]
not deliberate
BrianH
21-Aug-2009
[16925x2]
The compliment stands :)
A path is not a string in memory, btw. It's more like a block.
Steeve
21-Aug-2009
[16927]
well, i only said that without knowing the true truth, only to gain 
a victory against Maxim
Maxim
21-Aug-2009
[16928]
HAHAHA
BrianH
21-Aug-2009
[16929]
The string parsing is done at LOAD time. Keep fighting :)
Maxim
21-Aug-2009
[16930]
spoken like a true french would...

if you can't beat him... lie!    ;-p
Steeve
21-Aug-2009
[16931]
Usually it works
Maxim
21-Aug-2009
[16932]
(for the record... I'm french speaking too :-)
BrianH
21-Aug-2009
[16933]
So you would know :)
Steeve
21-Aug-2009
[16934]
(ithough,  was right on the specific evaluation scheme)
Maxim
21-Aug-2009
[16935]
americans exaggerate, we just invent stuff... its more fun... hehehe 
 but we all lie  !  ;-D
BrianH
21-Aug-2009
[16936]
Yeah, it's still parsed, but it's block-parsed instead of string-parsed.
Steeve
21-Aug-2009
[16937]
so it's a mid-lie
Maxim
21-Aug-2009
[16938]
half a truth is no truth AT ALL !!!!
BrianH
21-Aug-2009
[16939]
I prefer to think that I deduce and induce, rather than lie :)
Maxim
21-Aug-2009
[16940x2]
assuming is just lying with a good case!
;-)