Gee whiz my message sounded negative, wasn't meant to, was meant to be
constructive. Sorry.
Brett.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 10:14 AM
Subject: [REBOL] set in object 'variable "string" Re:(6)
>
> > 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.
>
>
