Hi Gabriele,
glad to see you back in good "form" (pun itended ;-).
you wrote:
>That behaviour is not due to form:
Correct. What is it due to?
Apparently, the way REBOL treats words in parentheses has changed since
version 1:
Here's what version 1 used to do:
>> word: "meaning"
meaning
>> var2: make paren! [word]
(word)
>> var2
(word)
>> :var2
(word)
(This was copied from the Version 1 console: 1.0.3.3 (Win32 x86))
Compare to your experiments:
>> word: "meaning"
== "meaning"
>> var2: make paren! [word]
== (word)
>> var2
== "meaning"
>> :var2
== (word)
In version 1 get and evaluation of var2 amounted to the same thing. In the
current version this is no longer true.
How do you account for the difference between:
>> :var2
== (word)
and
>> var2
== "meaning"
?
Using :var2 returns something different from evaluating var2. However, the
new User's Guide (beta) continues to say:
User's Guid (beta)
:word Retrieve the word's value, but don't evaluate it.
This is useful for referring to functions and other
types of data without evaluating them.
So, everything would be peachy, if (word) was covered by the vague "... and
other types of data ...". Is a word in parentheses a type of data that is
evaluated? Not according to the dictionary:
"PAREN!
Represents the PAREN datatype, both externally to the user and internally
within the system. When supplied as an argument to the MAKE function, it
specifies the type of value to be created. When provided within the
specification of the argument of a function, it requests the interpreter to
check that the argument value is of the specified type when the function is
evaluated. "
For our discussion it is important to note that the dictionary does not
document a usage of paren! which leads to the evaluation of a word. My
guess is that was introduced after 1.0. Version 2.1 already includes the
new way (word) works.
I'd say the dictionary needs to be updated. BTW, if anyone from the REBOL
crew is reading along, the following statement in the dictionary entry for
PAREN! also needs to be carefully reworded ;-):
"When provided within the specification of the argument of a function, it
requests the interpreter to check that the argument value is of the
specified type when the function is evaluated. "
That was never true.
Elan
