{{
In the case of scalars, I guess you are saying that there is only
really one "instance" of each scalar value, and any word with that
state refers to that one "instance". (No flames on the term instance,
please.)
}}
Or, REBOL only creates one object for a given scalar value, and all
words def
Hi, Ted,
just a few remarks, if you don't mind (no flames intended).
I tried to prove, that as long as the value is immutable, there is
no need to worry about the storage.
The interpreter can store it as many times and at as many places
as is preferrable, without worrying about the consequences
Hi, Ted,
SHORT VERSION:
1) I'm not sure what "scalar" really means in REBOL (and a simple
listing of the datatypes that are called scalar isn't an
explanation). Maybe that's my fault?
2) Without a clearly-stated model/specification from the final
authority (REBOL, Inc.), we may s
Hi, thanks, I forgot about it. But, see:
Money:
>> a: $100
== $100.00
>> poke a 2 3
== $3.00
>> a
== $100.00
It seems immutable to me
Date:
>> a: 7/1/2000
== 7-Jan-2000
>> poke a 1 8
== 7-Jan-0008
>> a
== 7-Jan-2000
Time:
>> a: 21:21
== 21:21
>> type? a
== time!
>> poke a 1 22
== 22:21
>> a
=
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> l>> word ; mutable (protect/unprotect/set ...)
>
> Actually, I prefer to think that those function modify the
> context, not the word. Well, at least for 'set.
>
Hmmm. Interesting, but I can see your point. How about 'bind? Do
you consider that as modif
