Hi Jason,
I'm not attempting to answer your question so much as point out that you and your 'friends-friend are refering to different parsers, You are are talking about the parse dialect in rebol. They seem to be refering to the parse that is conducted by the rebol interperter as it reduces blocks of code/data into what we want. I am not clear on what their problem with "number of arguments to a function" is but maybe it is that the number is fixed -- no overloading or maybe they miss brackets f() maybe one of the languages people will explain the trade offs w.r.t. argument passing. On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Jason Cunliffe wrote: > Today I read a comment about REBOL which I don't understand. I am NOT seeking to > start a language flamewar. Just curious and hoping someone here can explain more > about parsers. I barely know how to use REBOL's parse, but I like what I know > about it, and it has a strong reputation in these waters. > > > On Rebol (which to my ears rhymes more with Cobol than with rebel :-), > > I've not looked much at it personally, but I trust a close colleague > > who has, and who finds it hard to use because the parser cannot know > > the end of a function's parameter list -- that's only known at run > > time, once the function is called. Sounds like dead on arrival to me, > > as far as language design goes. So if we want to learn from Rebol, we > > must try to learn from other ideas in it, not from the core language > > design. snip > > Thanks > ./Jason > > -- > 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.
