On Thu, 4 Nov 2010, Izkata wrote: > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Carl Read <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, 4-Novenber-2010 at 18:59:10 Duke Normandin wrote, > > > > > >So... It seems that several REBOL data-types fall into an umbrella > > >category called "series". Is there a particular reason for *categorizing* > > >these data-types under the name "series"? > > > > For one, it means routines that are written to handle series will then > > handle all the types that are series. ie... > > > > >> foreach value "abc" [print value] > > a > > b > > c > > >> foreach value [xxx yyy zzz] [print value] > > xxx > > yyy > > zzz > > >> foreach value %file.r [print value] > > f > > i > > l > > e > > . > > r > > > > -- Carl Read. > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to > > lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject. > > > > > > As another quick example, there's a datatype called number! that both > integer! and decimal! fall under.
I've been thinking the very same thing! But is "number" the data-type, or integer and decimal the data-type (as in other languages). You see? I don't see the point, e.g. using the Pascal family paradigm, of having LONGINT, INTEGER, SHORTINT, REAL etc, which are data-types, and giving them the collective name of "numbers". What would be the point? In REBOL, the functions that operate on a "block", also work on a string, also work etc etc etc. So is a "series" some OOP super CLASS or something members inherent all those methods (functions). -- Duke -- To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
