Hi Keith,
If you want an answer from RT, you can send your question to feedback.
do http://www.rebol.com/feedback.r
And choose (2) General Question.
But in terms of skip. this may help.
To quote Jeff
"The typical REBOL parameter arrangement is that which is operated
on followed by the things to operate on it with."
Once you are used to recognising this pattern, you may find that nested
skips are easy enough to read and use, as they are.
Cheers,
Allen K
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 9:53 AM
Subject: [REBOL] Rebol Tech, please answer. Two questions.
> Hey list, sorry to be annoying. I've asked these two questions before, but
> I've never really gotten an answer to them, and they're bugging me!
>
> 1. I'll just give an example.
>
> blk: [11 22 33 44 55]
> print skip blk 3
> 44 55
>
> Why not (print skip 3 blk) instead of (print skip blk 3)? What I'm getting
> at is that it seems like it would be easier to chain these things together
> if the arguments were in a different order (block last). For instance:
>
> >> blk: [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]
> == [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]
> >> elem: skip skip blk 2 3
> == [6 7]
>
> If you want to do nested skips, the 'skips keep piling up in the front and
> the numbers of elements to skip keep on piling up in the back. It seems
more
> natural to me for it to be:
>
> >> blk: [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]
> == [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]
> >> elem: skip 2 skip 3 blk
> == [6 7]
>
> Can any of the Rebol Tech guys explain why they made it this way? You guys
> must have thought of this, and I'd be really interested to hear why you
> chose against it. Pleeeese let me know!
>
> 2. The lack of associative arrays in Rebol has bugged me from the
beginning.
> Last time I e-mailed the list about it I got suggestions for emulating
them
> with blocks. Last night I thought that I could just use objects to do what
I
> want. obj/index is just as good to me as obj{index}. The only thing is
that
> I don't know of a way to add refinements to objects dynamically. Always
> creating a new object from the old one when I want to add a refinement
> doesn't appeal to me. I know RT must have made a conscious decision not to
> include associative arrays in the language, I'm just wondering why. Blocks
> supercede their functionality, etc. Please let me know. I'd be really
> interested to hear the reasoning behind this.
>
> Thank you very very much.
>
> Keith
>
> P.S. One of the things that could go in a Rebol FAQ in a section entitled
> "For People Coming From Other Languages" could be questions like the ones
> I've asked above. I could imagine a question like: "I come from a Perl
> background. I'm used to using hashes for everything. What do I do in
Rebol?"
>
>
>
