World: r3wp

We are only concernce with this subset of data structures and we 
see that LOAD + SAVE in sequence does not adequately preserve even 
those.

Steeve, that is exactly a false impression, the original topic is 
about REBOL syntax preservation, all semantic detours are off-topic

And the argument is that a pair of functions with the names of LOAD 
and SAVE which pretty much cry *duality* is to be considered harmful 
if they willingly violate their implied duality.

but you both use a different semantic to argue around your subject

Taking the decimal! type as an example, the DED syntax (what LOAD 
can handle) can accept a wider range of decimals than can be represented 
in-memory. Those that can't be represented directly in memory are 
approximated. Since those approxiimations tend to happen in the 16th 
to 17th digits, they can be "undone" by ignoring those digits in 
the "friendly" output.

If you want to consider LOAD and SAVE not being a duality to be harmful, 
go ahead, considerations like that are a matter of opinion.

This "unapproximation" is simply broken then.

Yes, Andreas, that is what I have been saying.

But they are still useful, even if they are limited.

They are not limited, they are broken.

Right, since it "unapproximates" all values, i.e. values, that aren't 
"approximated". Therefore, it either can be called a "broken unapproximation", 
or, more precisely, no unapproximation at all,since it actually is 
not "unapproximation"

Reapproximation for MOLD, no approximation for MOLD/all, approximation 
depends on the digits for LOAD, at least for decimals.

Well, is that worh any discussion? The transformation clearly transforms 
values so, that after being transformed, additional error is introduced.

Maxim, we can't extend the existing serialized form to represent 
everything in memory, because binding, cycles and DAGs aren't representable 
without some kind of reference index. So even rebin wouldn't do, 
we'd need something like RIF.

Ladislav, it was just an example to illustrate that the abstract 
REBOL that is accepted by LOAD doesn't exactly represent the real 
REBOL in memory. But it does represent enough to do source processing 
by a preprocessor.

If you want to consider LOAD and SAVE not being a duality to be harmful, 
go ahead, considerations like that are a matter of opinion.

Ha, at least we got to the point. This opinion was all this discussion 
was originally about.

As a matter of fact, LOAD and SAVE/all form a far better duality 
as far as REBOL source is concerned. So Ladislav and I argued that 
making /all the default for SAVE would be a sensible thing to do.

The problem with that is that opinions vary. This has been happening 
a lot lately. Just the other day, Sunanda claimed in CureCode that 
assignments were unsafe. I couldn't even answer a statement like 
that without it turning into a flame war.

Sure, that's why we are discussing it at all. Besides getting mightily 
side-tracked in semantic debates that do mostly not pertain to this 
issue, to only argument against this suggestion I heard was that 
SAVE should behave symmetrically to MOLD, not dually to LOAD.

A nice result of this side-tracking is that I now consider mold completely 
broken for decimals, as it applies a hack that maybe once was appropriate 
for single precision floats, but certainly no longer is for double 
precision floats.

SAVE and MOLD are explicitly designed to be newbie-friendly - that 
includes being able to have MOLD generate the value 0.1, which is 
not representable by the (misnamed) decimal! type in memory. And 
#[] syntax has been judged to not be newbie-friendly, or at least 
an ugly thing that only power users do. If you want to reverse that 
decision, fine, but it's unlikely.

Once again, 0.1 is not the point here. That's the result of a flawed 
pretty-printer.

>> mold/all 0.1
== "0.10000000000000001"

Many values that developers usually write out in decimal aren't representable 
in memory. Welcome to the wonders of IEEE754.

Funny, what platform?

>> mold/all 0.1
== "0.1"

Andreas, you are not getting that the whole point of MOLD and SAVE 
is to be a pretty-printer.

Windows

What is FORM supposed to be then?

A pretty-printer for users rather than developers.

;-) Someone should start to write our chronicles. When I will be 
an old hag, I would be fun to read our old debates.

Andreas, please use R3 when talking about MOLD/all for decimals - 
it's broken on R2.

Fair enough. So your take is that LOAD/SAVE forms no duality because 
of MOLD is supposed to do "developer pretty printing" but for absolute 
newbie developers, not for developers familiar with e.g. #[] syntax.

>> mold/all 0.1
== "0.1"

the whole point of MOLD and SAVE is to be a pretty-printer

 - looks true for MOLD, but SAVE does not print, so this does not 
 apply in any reasonable sense

Well, that's the SAVE should be symmetric to MOLD argument. It's 
a fair point; just one I personally disagree with.

MOLD doesn't priint either. Very few pretty-printers print. It's 
a jargon term.

For that matter, PRINT doesn't really print either :)

btw, we are not really here

As I said, I can actually live with it, but, what I am unable to 
live with is, that this gotcha is nowhere documented, and it is a 
gotcha par excellence, as demonstrated

Andreas, which platform are you using? That is a serious platform-specific 
bug you are demonstrating there, and should be reported.

Linux

Brian, I would correct this "bug", if I were able to

I'll check CureCode to see if the bug is already there.

the problem is, that Microsoft does not allow me to do what I want 
in Windows

Btw, I consider my implementation to be far more correct than yours.

No need to put it to CC, the code that generates the string was written 
by me (both for Linux and for Windows), and I did my best

Linux yields a "better value", since I had more freedom in coding 
the conversion

0.10000000000000001 is not discernible from 0.1 in double precision 
IEEE754. 0.10000000000000002 is, though.

The behavior as designed in R3 is this:
>> mold 0.1
== "0.1"
>> mold/all 0.1
== "0.10000000000000001"

This is because 0.1 is not directly representable in a IEEE754 value. 
If it does not work this way on a platform, then the platform code 
is broken. And you, Ladislav, were the one who made the rule in the 
first place.