Hi Joel,
Regarding your two messages in response to Gabriele's reasonable assertion
that
"INSERT shouldn't use FORM when inserting a BINARY!"
You seem to have misunderstood Gabriele to be talking about JOIN where I
believe the statement was simply about INSERT. Maybe it was because you
missed this snippet of the message:
>> head insert tail copy #{0123} #{0123} ; eq. to join
== #{01230123}
but:
>> head insert tail copy #{0123} [#{0123}]
== #{0123237B303132337D}
I would have expected that both lines should have the same result.
The second example is equivalent to
>> head insert tail copy #{0123} form #{0123}
== #{0123237B303132337D}
Converting the value argument of insert clearly looks erroneous.
Brett.
PS I've enjoyed reading your recent investigations into the language and
performance of Rebol. With a little time, I'll be re-reading them. Keep up
the good work!
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 10:22 PM
Subject: [REBOL] Problem with try [ open/direct/binary tcp://... ] Re:(8)
> It appears that using a block as the second argument, when the first
> argument is of any-string! type, causes the contents of the block
> be treated as strings.
>
> >> join #{} ['foo 123 :fum]
> == #{666F6F3132333F66756E6374696F6E3F}
> >> to-string join #{} ['foo 123 :fum]
> == "foo123?function?"
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > INSERT shouldn't use FORM when inserting a BINARY!. I'm sending
> > this to feedback too (I don't remember if I had already signaled
> > this to feedback...).
> >
>
> Do you mean "shouldn't" in the sense of
>
> 1) "contradicts the official specification", or
> 2) "doesn't do what I expected", or
> 3) "doesn't seem to me to do The Right Thing"?
>
> Please understand, I'm not criticizing your remark! It's just that
> option (1) requires that there BE an accessible specification. If
> there is one which I've overlooked, I'll be VERY grateful if you
> will tell me where it is (and it may very well be Carl's massive
> tome of yesterday evening -- I just haven't finished reading it!)
>
> Of course, I generally hold your experienced expectations -- as
> in (2) -- or your good taste in programming -- as in (3) -- in
> very high regard!
>
> -jn-
>
