Howdy, Jake:
> 1) How many people are going to *want* an immediately DOable
> REBOL expression?
Lots of people! ;-)
> Maybe I'm missing something, but what about FORM? For
> example, assume I pass this to my script:
DOing formed blocks is sort of inelegant. You're taking a
REBOL data structure, a block, and then turning it into a
string. By the DOing the string the interpreter actually
turns the string back into a block of REBOL data types
before evaluating it. It's not very optimal. Just DOing
the original string ends up being half as much work.
I do agree with what you're saying, though, about the need
to distinguish command line args. Believe me-- I want REBOL
to excel at command line integration as much as the next
guy!
Another idea that was brought up was that you could have
more than one view of the command line args available, so
those that want the separation of args would have it in a
block somewhere, and those that want just a doable string
would have it somewhere else. Best of both methods
approach.
Would that work for us disgruntled REBOL command liners? (-:
Command-linely yours,
-jeff
