Hi Joel
Those were the words of [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
<...>
> For clarity of communication, and ease of learning by newcomers,
> I'm simply proposing that:
>
> A) each language concept should have one unique name/term
> (although explanations and tutorials obviously will use a
> variety of descriptions)
> B) each name/term should refer to one unique concept.
>
> I believe this somewhat purist approach is compatible with the
> philosophy of a minimalist/elegant language such as REBOL.
I agree here, but
> In THEORY, a series is a data storage and a "current position"
> within that storage.
> In IMPLEMENTATION, a series has a REFERENCE to a sharable data storage
> and has a private/nonshared "current position" within that storage.
> Don't we agree that given:
>
> a: next "123456"
> b: next a
>
> both 'a and 'b refer to the same string, but to different positions
> within that string? Isn't it valid to say that 'a and 'b are not the
> same series, but that each is a series referring to the same string
> (or whatever we want to call the data storage in this example)?
> Isn't that less ambiguous than saying that they are the same series?
I find it much easier to understand to call
"123456" - the series, and
'a / 'b - indexes into the series
To me this seems to show better the difference between actions on
the index ('next, ...) and on the series (insert, ...)
Just my two cents
regards,
Ingo
-- _ . _
ingo@)|_ /| _| _ <We ARE all ONE www._|_o _ _ ._ _
www./_|_) |o(_|(/_ We ARE all FREE> ingo@| |(_|o(_)| (_|
http://www.2b1.de/Rebol/ ._| ._|
