World: r3wp

When SAVE is being used to generate source that is meant to be run 
by DO, that source should be semantically equivalent to DO code (active 
values in an evaluation context won't be preserved without QUOTE, 
nor will constructed values in a non-evaluating context). When the 
generated source is intended to be LOADed, it should stick to the 
semantics that can be directly LOADed without DO (no multi-level 
"nested scopes" or other binding tricks, no inline modules, no natives). 
And when you are going to combine them, stick to string source.

The trick here is that #[none], #[true], #[false] and #[unset!] are 
constructed values. If you write them out directly in that syntax, 
you are mixing paradigms.

ok read the complete definition of DED and its missing A LOT of valid 
rebol datatypes.


well, the object! is part of "compound" values.  there is a litteral 
notation for objects, so yes, it is part of the DED.


also the text uses composite values, but its like refers to scalars, 
which is wrong.

(the text of that wiki article)

arrrgh...  I'm "typoing"  profusely

like = link

but  #[none], #[true], #[false] and #[unset!]   are part of the DED... 
no?  since they are the litteral notation of specific datatypes.

Maxim's point about serializing circular structures also applies 
to "nested scopes" with more than one level of nesting.
>> #[function! [[x][#[function! [[][x * x]]]]]] 42
** Script error: x has no value
** Where: applier applier
** Near: make function! [[][x * x]]

Maxim, I have yet to comment on the DED - I am still commenting on 
REBOL.

The trick here is that #[none], #[true], #[false] and #[unset!] are 
constructed values.

 - yet another Goebbels' truth. They are much less "constructed" than 
 e.g. 0.1, which actually does not even exist in REBOL (how many users 
 know that?)

I am not using Goebbel's truth, I am using REBOL.

Me too, but, I am not trying to present falsehoods as truths

Well, obviously decimal!s are constructed values too!

well,   once could argue that 0.1 exists in REBOL at the DED level 
but not at the,  but not after its constructed.  ;-)

As said, if #[true] is "constructed" in any sense of the word, what 
is 0.1? As I said, 0.1 does not even exist in REBOL, which is easy 
to prove

Maybe it is deconstructed?

litteral notation of specific datatypes

 - Those are "serialized syntax". The definition of "constructed datatypes" 
 in REBOL is those types that can be written literally in REBOL without 
 using "serialized syntax". I am going by the standard REBOL terms 
 obviously, since both syntaxes are serial and all values are constructed 
 from those syntaxes.

1.0 doesn't exist in any IEEE using software, but a value can be 
constructed FROM it  ;-)

oops  

1.0 = 0.1

If you want to use other than the standard REBOL terms, then come 
up with some other terminology to make that specific distinction, 
since it is the only distinction that matters for this discussion, 
which is about the difference between MOLD and MOLD/all.

Max, to be true, you should add in binary floating point IEEE754, 
otherwise, there are non-binary (decimal IEEE 754 versions), where 
it is not true

And pardon the delay in replying, I am having AltME freezes again.

Brian: ``The definition of "constructed datatypes" in REBOL is those 
types that can be written literally in REBOL without using "serialized 
syntax"``

_can_ or _can not_?

Freezes: me too

can not. The not got dropped in a freeze.

(Ladislav, true, that is what I meant)

Standard REBOL terms - I like those, is there a definition, what 
is meant by "serialized syntax"?

(I suppose, that it is the syntax starting with #"#"?

I think the definition would be to observe mold/all behaviour.

Anything in #[].

That is the standard term's meaning.

Well, then, ok, some REBOL values can be represented by "serialized 
syntax" and not by "non-serialized" DED syntax, this is where we 
agree, I suppose?

At least the REBOL standard. We have a lot of inappropriate standard 
terms (I'm looking at you, "context"). :(

I have no idea what you mean by DED.

read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REBOL#Syntax

So you basically mean REBOL without #[] ?

no, I just mean REBOL

i.e. everything LOAD accepts

Oh, then you are not making the distinction in question here in this 
discussion.

Ok, so decimal! is obviously something in a third category. It can 
not be written literally without using special syntax, but it is 
not using serialized syntax according to Brian's definition.

LOAD accepts a lot of stuff that doesn't match this or that dialect's 
semantic model.

The point is, that DED has no semantic model.

Yes, that is the point

It is purely of syntactical nature, a tree of blocks (and parens) 
and scalar values.

And, it is trivial to see, that #[true] belongs to it.

And based on that, the problem is: load + save does not preserve 
the original data correctly

Regardless of #[true], as demonstrated on decimals

Andreas, decimal is a special case in that the regular syntax which 
can specify every value representable in memory, also can specify 
values which aren't representable, which have to be approximated. 
And since those approximated values include much of what developers 
actually use, the aproximation is undone when the value is saved 
in the form which is supposed to result in ordinary source code.

which is why some values wrap to 0.1 even though that value isn't 
representable within memory... it should be 0.999999999999999... 
 IIRC

when I say "it should be" I mean the real value in memory

Yes, that looks as a reasonable explanation, but, as I said, it transforms 
the script:

rebol [] same? 0.10000000000000001 0.10000000000000002

yielding #[false] into:

rebol [] same? 0.1 0.1

yielding #[true]


If I had to use a script preprocessor doing this, I would rather 
jump under a moving magnetophone tape, as a friend of mine told once