Hi,
what I was trying to say, is that for integer values in Rebol you can have
only one state, because they are immutable. That means, that you may say:
integer value with the state 2
but this is correct too:
integer value 2
, because there is no way in Rebol to change it to a different state.
The same is true now only for simple Rebol types, but there is a possibility
to add even an immutable block type or immutable function type.
Ladislav
> On 1/3/2000 at 6:56 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: {{
> Ted doesn't have to worry about the contents of integer value ... The
> Human Value of a mutable Rebol Value is actually its current state.
> }}
>
> Actually,
>
> "A is a word set to an integer value with the state 2"
>
> works pretty good for me. And so then we can say things like
>
> "SAME returns TRUE when two words share the same series value, or two
> scalar values have the same state."
>
> REBOL often treats scalar and series values differently.A series value
> itself, for example, has both a scalar and non-scalar value. When you
> set another word to a series, REBOL copies the state of the scalar
> value (the index) but shares the value of the data (non-scalar). So
> both series refer to same data value, but have independant index
> values. If you were to test each value seperately, they would both
> return TRUE -- since 'SAME has different criteria for scalar and
> non-scalar values.
>
> Meanwhile, I think Joel has found a bug with the TIME! data-type. I get
> the same result if I create a word/value with 'TO-TIME. REBOL acts like
> you can change the /MINUTE part, but when you check later, it is the
> same as it ever was. There seems to be the same problem with TUPLE!
>
> -Ted.
>
>
>
>
>
>
