[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The point is that this is pure speculation! I understand that
> this seems to be what the current implementation is doing, but
> without an `official' description, this speculation may or may
> not be what is `intended'.
You're absolutely right, but we have nothing to do about that. If
you are willing to do that huge work for free, contact Carl and
I'm sure he'll help you.
> I agree that these rules are useful for simple cases. However,
> in complicated cases, like functional composition, the trick of
> modifying an existing, possibly shared, context is a hinderance.
The whole point about REBOL is turning complicated cases into
simple ones. Anyway, could you show me an example? I'd like to
help finding a workaround for these limits, if they exist.
> You are clearly in the `Gump' camp: REBOL is as REBOL does.
Yes, but from what Jeff, Jim and above all Carl said in the past
moths in this ml, I think they are near to the intended behaviour.
> I mean that top-level functions seem to be useful as first-class
> functions, and you can call nested functions, but if you attempt to
> return a nested function as a value, you can't use it in a meaningful
> way, and REBOL eventually crashes.
Could you give me an example, please? I never encountered problems
returning functions.
> >>Every version of REBOL has either made subtle or drastic changes in
> >>how variables are scoped.
>
> >That's false. It never changed, if not from 1.0 to 2.0 (EVERYTHING
> >changed...).
>
> I'd call `EVERYTHING' drastic.
Please place that change in its context. REBOL 2.0 introduced new
concepts and eliminated some. Besides, there was not a need for
compatibility at that time. I'm sure REBOL 3.0 will not introduce
that many changes.
> Bullshit. I have no idea how big they are, but I've seen quite
> a few descriptions of what REBOL (the language) seems to be doing
> in the archive, and not once has REBOL (the company) said: `Yes.
> That's the correct model' or
> `That's very close to what we want to be doing.'
Once Jim said that that model was close to reality.
> Again, how do you know this? Maybe it is `incorrect' to return
Carl said that's a bug. Context, as all other values, have
indefinite extent.
> Jeff is already the self-acclaimed winner of this contest.
He surely known REBOL better than me. ;-)
Ciao,
/Gabriele./
o--------------------) .-^-. (----------------------------------o
| Gabriele Santilli / /_/_\_\ \ Amiga Group Italia --- L'Aquila |
| GIESSE on IRC \ \-\_/-/ / http://www.amyresource.it/AGI/ |
o--------------------) `-v-' (----------------------------------o
