World: r3wp

http://www.rebol.org/art-display-article.r?article=w24v- porting 
INCLUDE to R3

brian I would like your comments on the deep object copy issue ( 
http://www.rebol.net/r3blogs/0212.html)

I have been trying to think think it through - there are advantages 
and disadvantages to either way. It is harder to undo a copy than 
not...

exactly, which is why I think we should not be bound by one or the 
other .... 

did you see my posts... I provide some alternatives.

I'm still thinking. I'll comment after I narrow down this parse bug.

Plus all that binding takes MASSIVE amounts of time for nothing.

(and ram too)

Either way you need constructor code. The real question is balance.

IMO we need choice.  this is such a fundamental part of data management 
that we cannot let the compiler decide.


would you code in C if all structure copies behaved this way?  if 
this where the case an OS would probably need 1TB of RAM to run.

allowing COPY on objects makes much more sense to me.

I added a fairly comprehensive comment, with tests. I had to generate 
3 CureCode tickets as a result :(

what is the replacement for first context []  in R3  I can't remember 
the function's name

the why? in R3 is a fabulous idea!

WORDS-OF, but the 'self word is not included.

no self ...   COOL  :-)

And the returned words are bound to the object.

oh that is cool.

I see unbind is now part of R3  :-D

WORDS-OF works on any-object!, any-function! and map! too, though 
it's only bound to any-object!.

I could see the binding to map being usefull, it might be impossible 
due to the inner implementation of map

I'm trying to backport UNBIND to R2, but it's really tricky.

I've tried several times... I usually end up doing:     load mold 
myblock

You can't bind to a map! because the keys are handled differently, 
with the keys going away when assigned none.

You can't bind to something that might go away :)

yep  :-)   I guess asking for a word in a map which isn't there returns 
none  ?

Yup :)

Most of map!'s behavior was my idea.

it makes me think of the array type in AREXX  ;-)

are only words supported in map! or are other types usable for the 
key?

Other types too, but not all other types.

so scalars, pairs, tuples, strings, words at least?

Yup.

a trick question... are set and get words enabled? and are they differentiated 
from lit-words?

to me an unbound word is a lit-word in the context of the map...

I'm not sure what I wrote above makes sense.. hahaha

Binaries too, but not block, object or vector types. Word types are 
converted to word!.

All types can be used as values though, except #[none] which will 
make the key disappear.

yep this means we can use the map exactly like in AREXX, very usefull 
for sparse arrays  :-)

if you used the object's pointer in the map internally, we could 
use objects too, it would actually be very usefull and not that much 
heavy to implement.

like find with blocks is very fast.  it only maps the exact same 
object, not a similar object AFAIK.

You can use objects as the values, but the keys need to be hashable 
:)

Map keys get hashed when the map gets large enough. No, I don't know 
how large that is :)

but the object pointers can be hashed? no?

Bring it up with Carl :)

he'll ask me for an example of usage... now I have to scan my brain 
for the last 10 years of REBOL usage... and remember when I'd used 
this... hehe

The advantage of map keys is that they don't have to be the SAME? 
as the key, they can just be EQUAL? and the hashing speeds things 
up. With objects you either have a reference to it or you don't. 
If you have a reference, you can extend it with new fields, which 
can refer to the values you want to associate with the object. If 
you don't have a reference you need to specify a key within the object 
that you are searching for, and hashing won't help there, but we're 
going to add a mezzanine to do that kind of searching.

the EQUAL? note is very important to mention in the docs... and its 
important for the difference between them to be very explicitely 
defined for all types, somewhere.

the difference between EQUAL? and SAME?

I believe there is a blog conversation about that now :)

yep... I just meant... it has to be very precisely/explicitely documented 
 :-)


btw, I added other qualitative word examples for equality-likeness-sameness 
on the post...  might give you ideas for a better scalling of the 
four levels