On 12/30/1999 at 12:31 AM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
{{
value reference: The relationship between a word and the value it
references.
series reference: The relationship between a series value and its
underlying data.
}}
Isn't a "series reference" just a pair of value references? One to a
non-scalar (the data) and one to a scalar (the index).
When a series is returned by an operation, it simply follows the usual
REBOL behaviour of returning a reference to the non-scalar and a copy
of the scalar.
-Ted.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 12/30/1999 at 12:31 AM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Elan,
>From one of your latest posts, I've concluded that our differences on
what is
and isn't reference are quite minor, after all (except for my woeful
lack of
background). I agree on the overall framework you proposed under the
terms
"explicit reference" and "automatice reference". I was toying with
these
terms, which pretty much parallel yours:
value reference: The relationship between a word and the value it
references.
series reference: The relationship between a series value and its
underlying data.
I realize that "series reference" is not a good term, since essentially
the
same form of reference also applies to the relationship between
any-function!
object! and possibly port! values and their underlying data. (I'm still
groping in the dark regarding how port! values should be pictured.)
I've also learned a lot about contexts from this thread. My hazy
notions have
sharpened quite a bit thanks to remarks you and Gabriele have made.
Thanks!
TIE, and have a great New Year!
Eric
