Anton: > "Mutually exclusive refinements" should mean: > you don't get any (= exclusive) > if they are specified together (= mutually).
That's a logical response. But it's not the only logical response. Take an example: a function whose job it is to adjust a date to the nearest Monday (start of week) or Saturday (start of weekend). It is obvious what it should do if I invoke it "properly": nearest-to/sow now/date or nearest-to/sowe now/date But what if I code? nearest-to now/date ;; no refinement or nearest-to/sow/sowe/date ;; both refinements Possible responses include (there are many others): -- function crashes with or without logging an error message -- function returns none or false -- function returns input date unchanged -- function defaults to /sow -- so I get the nearest Monday -- function works out both /sow and /sowe. Then it returns the earliest one, so I get a Monday or a Friday All of those are reasonable behaviours under some conditions. But unless you know the usage the function was *initially* intended for, it's not really possible to guess what default behaviour my actual, real, nearest-to function displays. Of course, it might make a lot more sense, and remove a lot of dangerous guessing, if it had been initially written as two separate functions. Sunanda. -- To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to rebol-request at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
