You guys are titillatingly fun ... > Hi, Gregg, et al, > > Yet another variation, just for fun, and a profound philosophical > comment... ;-) > > Gregg Irwin wrote: > > > > Hi Dick, > > > > Hopefully I won't just add more confusion here... > > > > << 10 + 10 > > means something to the Rebol interpretation process, but > > 10+10 does not have the same meaning... > > > > If we take the numbers out of the equation :) to avoid > > syntactical issues, you can do this (because + is a valid > > character in words): > > > > >> a: 1 > > == 1 > > >> b: 2 > > == 2 > > >> a + b > > == 3 > > >> a+b: 4 > > == 4 > > >> a+b > > == 4 > > > > So, "a+b" is not the same as "a + b". Now, you could also > > change the operation of +, like this: > > > > >> set '+ :* > > >> 1 + 3 > > == 3 > > > > But, AFAIK, you can't alter the operands that an operator > > operates upon. :) > > > > Depends on your definition of "alter"... > > >> a: func [:op 'val] [set val do [op get val get val]] > >> b: 3 > == 3 > >> a + b > == 6 > >> b > == 6 > >> > > A long time ago I heard someone say "FORTH is not a programming > language; it is a programming language construction kit!" > Despite differences in notation and internal representation, the > REBOL facility for dailecting, and the absence of distinction > between "data" and "code" make me think that the same statement > could be made of REBOL. > > Of course, I remember the saying, > > I've only met one self-made man, and he should have sued > the manufacturer for malpractice! > > ;-) > > -jn- > -- > To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, without the quotes.
>** --------- End Original Message ----------- ** > Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
