Those were the words of [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> See below:
>
> Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 11:42 AM
> Subject: [REBOL] "logical" value referencing ... Re:(3)
>
>
> [skip]
>
> > Personally, I'm also trying to beginning to question why APPEND
> > automatically jumps to the TAIL, but EMPTY? doesn't automatically jump
> > to the HEAD. May submit that one. Doesn't seem consistent.
>
> As 'append and 'empty? perform different functions, one adding something to
> a series, the other providing info about a series, why should they be
> "consistent"? 'append certainly should 'insert at 'tail. If you want to
> insert somewhere else in the series, 'insert can do it. Having 'empty?
> report on the series from the index to the tail is a convenience. If it
> didn't, someone would surely ask for a variety of empty? that did! To look
> at the whole series, use 'empty? 'head <some series variable>. As it is,
> 'empty? could be useful as a loop termination test where each step of the
> loop 'remove's something and one needs to know if all the items have been
> removed. IMO, submission isn't needed.
This would be tail? wouldn't it? So I think it would be better if
tail? reports wether a variables index points at the tail of a list,
empty? reports wether a variable points to a list that is really empty.
Thus insert? / tail? would work on the series at the variables index,
empty? / append would work on the series at a whole. That seems consistent
to me, not to words, that seem to mean different things (empty?/tail?) which
are just the same.
Just my two cents, and I guess we'll go in circles here.
regards,
Ingo
-- _ . _
ingo@)|_ /| _| _ <We ARE all ONE www._|_o _ _ ._ _
www./_|_) |o(_|(/_ We ARE all FREE> ingo@| |(_|o(_)| (_|
http://www.2b1.de/Rebol/ ._| ._|
