--- Message Received ---
From: Carl Read <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:52:39 +1200
Subject: [REBOL] Re: REBOL-SIMPLE dialect
Carl wrote:
"It just means you're not a true block-head yet. ;-) " True :-0
"Blocks are just containers, or that's how I look at them. Consider a st=
ring. It's just a container for bytes/characters, right? Well a block's =
just a container for REBOL values. ie..."
" if a =3D b [do this stuff]"
"IF expects two arguments, the second being a block. And if the first ar=
gument returns true, REBOL will evaluate what's inside the block, otherwi=
se it'll ignore it. But that block's no different to this one..."
"blk: [some stuff]"
"Meaning a block with code in is no different to a block with data in. A=
nd you'll notice IF's behaving like a function, not a command or statment=
. And just like a function that accepts a string, it's accepting a block=
. It's that simple."
Greg:
The flexibility of blocks is one thing, but again you hit on something th=
at caused me a lot of problems, looking for statements/commands which wer=
e in fact more like functions.
Carl:
"It's an interesting idea, though I'm not a dialect expert and don't know=
REXX, either. However, wouldn't a simple language like that, (only havi=
ng string variables, the need for "end"s, etc.), make the transition to R=
EBOL proper just as hard as it's been for you with moving from REXX?"
Greg:
I think it could be superficially REBOL-like, an entry point language. It=
would be verbose, and compared to real REBOL slower and much more mechan=
ical. It would have to be designed by someone absolutely at home with REB=
OL proper, because the purpose of the language/dialect would be in itself=
a gentle introduction to REBOL proper.
In reality as a langauge it would not be doing much besides conditional o=
perations, iterations, assignments and basic maths - everything else woul=
d be just formal function calls. Typless data (resolved within functions)=
, line based processing.
I don't know how it could elegantly be done, but I was thinking of a thre=
e level dialect. That is the top level is REBOL-SIMPLE, in which simple f=
unctions could be created, another level of function creation using anoth=
er set of more low level functions. And finally functions wrapping up rea=
l REBOL.
Using it at the top level (REBOL-SIMPLE) allows the novice user to quickl=
y arrange a fairly simple over arching script. The function level (next s=
tage down), still wrapped as a dialect, introduces another set of complem=
entary tool/functions allowing users to create more complex functions, an=
d then a function environement that is near enough to pure REBOL.=20
It may well be a silly suggestion, but I would like to have a lanaguage I=
could introduce to others as a really simple way to get things done, but=
then allows a fairly seamless extension into more complexity, already wr=
apped in a simple overcoat so that they can concentrate on creating a fra=
gment at a time and still have a fully functioning script.
--
To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to
lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
