Hi, Joel,
"Your colts have been faster, sheriff!" 8^)
I felt a need to write something like:
"Rebol Values vs. Human Values" to point out some differences between the
two notions, so I am picking up the glove.
1) Human Values are considered being the same as long as they are equal as
e.g. 2 + 3 and 4 + 1, without considering, where they are stored, written,
recorded,... The same is true in Rebol for special cases, as can be seen
here:
>> same? 2 + 3 4 + 1
== true
, even though the dictionary is telling:
{{
Returns TRUE if the values are identical objects, not just in value. For
example, a TRUE would be returned if two strings are the same string (occupy
the same location in memory). Returns FALSE for all other values.
}}
I do not doubt, that Rebol, not storing the results above at the same place
in the computer memory, uses the fact that integer values are the same as
long as they are equal.
One can find a very strange reformulation of the quoted text:
{{
Two values may not be the same even when they are identical in value.
}}
The above sentence sounds totally absurd to everyone, I think. Why? Because
it uses the word "value" in two different meanings. If I use a
reformulation:
{{
Two Rebol Values may not be the same even when their Human Values are
identical.
}}
, it seems to have some meaning, but, what is worse, it proves, that Rebol
Values and Human Values are not the same notions.
This didn't help us to find, where is the difference between Human Values
and Rebol Values.
To be continued...
Ladislav
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 3:52 AM
Subject: [REBOL] Evaluation Re:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > datatype!, object!, port!, refinement!, none!, logic!, integer!,
> > decimal!, money!, time!, date!, char!, tuple!, bitset!, string!,
> > issue!, binary!, file!, email!, url!, tag!, block!, hash!, list!
> >
> > All the values of these types evaluate returning themself.
> >
>
> And some of them have some curious behavior! In the case of
>
> >> mytime: now/time
> == 20:32:33
> >> mytime/hour
> == 20
> >> mytime/minute
> == 32
> >> mytime/minute
> == 32
> >> mytime/minute: 35
> == 20:35:33
> >> mytime
> == 20:32:33
>
> and
>
> >> mydate: now/date
> == 2-Jan-2000
> >> mydate/day
> == 2
> >> mydate/month
> == 1
> >> mydate/year
> == 2000
> >> mydate/day: 3
> == 3-Jan-2000
> >> mydate
> == 2-Jan-2000
>
> it would appear that we have composite values that are immutable,
> in the sense that they possess internal structure, but an attempt
> to change a component of that structure returns a new value of the
> same type, without modifying the original. This is, of course, in
> contrast to the mutability of strings.
>
> Incidentally, this also puts an interesting spin on the 'same?
> function. As the internals of a time! or date! can't be altered,
> it is "safe" to consider any two equal time or date values to be
> the same:
>
> >> mydate
> == 2-Jan-2000
> >> otherdate: make date! reduce [1 + 1 2 - 1 2 * 2 * 500]
> == 2-Jan-2000
> >> same? mydate otherdate
> == true
>
> >> mytime
> == 20:32:33
> >> othertime: make time! reduce [4 * 5 2 * 8 * (1 + 1) 3 * 11]
> == 20:32:33
> >> same? mytime othertime
> == true
>
> -jn-
>
>
>
