> A series is a block; a block is a series.
Quite right, I misspoke. All series are blocks, but not all blocks are
series.
> but if you alter the sequence, a series that refers to it may get
sick
The index points to the nth element, not to element n. This is how
series are designed. As another mentioined, Lists work differently.
<http://www.rebol.com/dictionary.html#A7269973>
Consider:
== make list! [1 2 3]
>> list2: back tail list1
== make list! [3]
>> insert list1 0
== make list! [1 2 3 ]
>> head list1
== make list! [0 1 2 3 ]
>> list2
== make list! [3]
With a series, list2 would have returned [2] (now the 3rd element)
rather than [3].
(Incidentally, Lists also don't seent to have the same problems with
CLEAR as we have found with series.)
>REBOL has no obligation to do things that/like other languages do,
Amen to that, brother.
>but it's hard (at least for me!) to approach a new language without
tidbits of the conceptual models of previously learned languages
leaking through
If REBOL is successful, I'm sure at some point we'll eventually see
titles like "REBOL for C++ Programmers". Hey, who knows, maybe you're
helping to write it now!
> The first edition of _Programming_Perl_ (Wall/Schwartz) had a section
called "Common Goofs for Novices", which I found VERY helpful in
building a mental model of Perl. Later writings included hints for
people coming from c, shell scripting, etc. I've seen the same
treatment used to introduce Java to programmers familiar with c,
smalltalk, etc. I think it would be helpful to have some REBOL
concepts described in terms of (or in contrast to) the conventional
ideas from other OO languages. (And I know it can't happen
overnight...)
Maybe the first edition of _Programming_REBOL_ will too. Welcome to
where people learn how novices goof.
-Ted.
