> > i don't have anything against the authors of those scripts, they
> > probably didn't know about schemes or were impressed by them (as you
> > seem to be). what they ended up doing doesn't seem to me to correspond
> > to how rebol was intended to be used. it is quite confusing to use for
> > users and i bet their implementation has been more complicated than if
> > they had used a scheme.
>=20
> I think that's a little unfair, even if true. It's a bit like blaming
> pioneers for not having used the freeways their grandchildren built.
i apologize for sounding for sounding like complaining. i did not mean
to complain about the contributed code and i'm definitely thankful to
graham (and others) for those examples which will be of great help for
what i need to do. i hope he/you didn't interpret my original mail
this way (didn't seem like it).
i just tried to answer to your question: "it's easy to hack, there's
code that does it, why would you want to bother doing it with
schemes?"
> What would be good in the Library is some "state of the art" scripts to
> replace some of the pioneering efforts. =20
exactly, which is why i was curious about people who had experience
with schemes... which seemed to me like the correct, long term way of
dealing with something which is now-a-days used extensively all over
the web (ie. cookies)
tc
--
To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to
lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
