joel.neely@fedex>> clear b
The problem with CLEAR has been classified as a bug, and is being
handled under ticket #1593. I'm told the REBOL language fully supports,
and even encourages, multiple references to the same series, but the
REBOL interpreter needs to be fixed.
>> My reading of the dict
Hi Joel,
I see that (so far) you chose to ignore my invitation in a previous
message, to comment on whether the logic of my argument is acceptable to
you. My question was addressed personally to you and not anonymously to the
list.
I conclude that since you have otherwise demonstrated a friendl
Hi Joel
Those were the words of [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
<...>
> For clarity of communication, and ease of learning by newcomers,
> I'm simply proposing that:
>
> A) each language concept should have one unique name/term
>(although explanations and tutorials obviously will use a
> variety of
Hi Joel,
you wrote:
>
>a: next "123456"
>b: next next a
>
>I suggest that there are three entities of interest:
>
>i) one which we get at via the variable 'a
>ii) one which we get at via the variable 'b
>iii) one which we can't get (directly) but which corresponds to a
> copy of th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> both 'a and 'b refer to the same string, but to different positions
within that string? Isn't it valid to say that 'a and 'b are not the
same series, but that each is a series referring to the same string (or
whatever we want to call the data storage in this example)?
On 12/16/1999 at 12:17 AM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> On the other hand, I prefer to keep the vocabulary needed to describe
> REBOL
> to a minimum. I also like to exploit the similarity of principles, to
> keep
> the volume of information needed to reason about REBOL to a minimum. If
> we
>
EMPTY? is defined as a synomyn for TAIL? and so TAIL? can be used to
terminate loops and such.
Now to test if an entire series is empty, we must say EMPTY? HEAD (or
use the synomyous TAIL? HEAD).
Right now, EMPTY? is just that, an empty synomyn for TAIL?. If it were
redefined as a synomyn for
Those were the words of [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> See below:
>
> Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 11:42 AM
> Subject: [REBOL] "logical" value referencing ... Re:(3)
>
>
> [skip]
>
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> A series is a block; a block is a series.
>
No. Consider the following:
>> argument: "I don't think so!"
== "I don't think so!"
>> type? argument
== string!
>> series? argument
== true
>> block? argument
== false
>> any-block? ar
