> Where did you derive that definition from? The PURPOSE of 'set is to
assign...
The language of this line seems to imply an obviousness which is not
apparent (hence the length of the thread). However is does highlight (for
me) the hightened risks of assumptions when dealing with Rebol. At least in
learning it, which I am.
Overall this has been a very illuminating thread. As I read each post I
thought "ah yes - thats right", then the next "oh., ok this point seems to
hold better structure", and back and forth and so on....
My thanks to all that persisted. For me, this thread demonstrated at least:
(1) Rebol code is not always obvious because it is not always "English like"
and assuming so leads a bit of heartache.
(2) making analogies to other programming languages is also risk laden ("You
must unlearn what you have learned" - unless you have a functional
programming background and hence a head start on us oldies).
(3) the rebol grammer, in the end, seems consistent again
(4) the documentation is wanting again.
I suggest discussions like this be condensed and rephrased as examples to
the documenation (which could use them) - if this is not already happening.
Brett.
