Gregg Irwin napsal(a):
...snip...
> In my last post I noted that I didn't
> like the lit-word! syntax in Gabriele's latest version,
that is my fault, I accepted Gabriele's /only proposal keeping the
declaration of the EMIT argument from my previous attempt.
...snip...
> Ladislav had mentioned the relation to SET as well and, if you think
> of it that way, Gabriele's notation feels much better. i.e. "set
> <this-word> to the function that is going to collect the data." (verb),
> rather than "collect this value when I set it" (noun).
>
...snip...
My reasons are more technical, though. Why the SET native doesn't use
the same argument passing like e.g. FOREACH? The reason is technical
(referential transparency). We want SET to be able to accept a result of
an expression like:
set (compute the word we want to be set) (compute the value)
If we used the nontransparent argument passing, this wouldn't be
possible, because the first argument wouldn't be evaluated.
In the case of the COLLECT function we can pick the nontransparent
argument passing, because it is improbable we would want to use a result
of an expression as the EMIT argument. But I (personally) don't think it
is a good practice to use nontransparent argument passing anywhere and
don't see any advantages of doing it. (nice flame bait, isn't it?)
-L
--
To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to
lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
