> My point is not that REBOL cannot be used for functional programming.
> Nor is it that functional programming languages cannot have
> imperative operations. My point is that describing REBOL as
> a `functional' language is disingenuous because, although it can
> support `functional' programming, it encourages an `imperative'
> style. The vast amount of `imperative' code present in the examples
> and the script library are evidence of this bias.
>
It's enough I think, no? I remember similar discussion on this list some
time ago, lead nowhere.
It's starting to sound as opinion vs. opinion and noone seems to be
willing to accept argument of opposite side.
So, while the discussion can be informative for us all, maybe it's better
to stop it to prevent us from flames.
Maybe calling REBOL a functional language is not as uncommon, as is your
hidden name, "a142808", hmm? ;-)
-pekr-
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
