I understand what your saying about the words. I was on IRC last night
chatting about this topic and will most likely end up setting up the ports
objects to contain a reference to the username to make functional a portion
of my script. I have been enlightened greatly in this topic though.
interesting enough is that when we did a print first waitports we returned
'irc-open-port. When we stepped through the waitports block to the next
position and did a probe next first waitports we did not return the word
which we believe was because the script was reducing before appending the
port object to the block at some point.
Paul Tretter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 12:35 AM
Subject: [REBOL] Re: Back to the Advanced Port stuff again
> Hi Paul,
>
> you wrote:
>
> > Lets forget about alternative methods for doing this another way for a
> > moment and explain where I can find the word that is bound to the port
> > object given only the object. This is really what I seek to know.
>
> you apparently are not understanding what you are saying. You say "the
> word that is bound to the port object"!
> Who is bound to whom?
> The word is bound. To whom? To the port-object!
> The port-object is NOT bound to the word!
>
> You cannot make a reverse lookup from object to word, because "the
> port-object is not bound to the word" means that the object does not
> know that there is a word, that the word is paul, and that paul is bound
> to the object! Again, paul is bound to the object, the object is NOT
> bound to paul, it is a one-way relationship, where the word "knows" what
> it's bound to - that's what a word is there for anyway - but the value -
> here an object - does not have the faintest idea that it is bound to
> anything, nor must it be bound to anything (you can have a value that is
> not bound to anything. Unfortunately the garbage collector will pick it
> up quite soon ...)
>
> If your design is based around the assumption that you want to associate
> some kind of name value, paul, or gordon, or whatever, with an object
> programmatically, by turning the name - ie paul - into a set-word! value
> programmatically - make set-word! :name - and then associating it with
> the port object, or whatever value, -
>
> name: "Paul"
> new-port: make set-word! :name
> new-port make port! port-object
>
> then you have a DESIGN BUG! Your idea was that by associating the
> set-word! (here Paul:) with the port-object! you would be able to follow
> this association backwards, from the port back to the set-word!, here
> Paul:. You cannot! It's a one-way street. paul -> port-object. Period.
> Now backwards following Got it?
>
> Now, can we talk about alternative methods?
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Elan
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
> subject, without the quotes.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
subject, without the quotes.
