World: r3wp

using clear would imply that an object is a series.

Carl is here maybe he can comment on the previous discussion regarding 
chaining.

eh ? where is that discussion ?

That was this one:

>> a: construct [b: c: 2]
== make object! [
    b: 2
    c: 2
]

On how to keep the 'b from being assigned the 2

So that it could actually be:

==make object! [
b: none
c: 2
]

Just so that we can do some dynamic building of blocks with set-words 
and pass it to construct and not worry about a set-word getting assigned 
a value from the chain.

you want optional assignement ?

yes, maybe a refinement that allows me to suppress the chaining for 
constructs

Paul, just iterate through the block before you construct it and 
whenever a set-word! is followed by another set-word! insert a none 
in between.

Yeah I could do that Anreas, just like most functions we can usually 
do some prework but thought it would offer something a bit safer 
built-in.

Write such a function and offer it to be included as mezzanine.

Any chance we can promote a feature of REBOL that looks more secure 
or performance oriented out of the box is a marketing plus in my 
opinion.

I could Andreas but thought it would be more bloat than a refinement 
would incurr.

Any refinement you are thinking of would need to to exactly that.

The bloat would be hidden behind the refinement...

Which I would assume would be less than me roleing it from the top

Paul, if you need it, just write it.

I could give that answer to 90 percent of the things we ask for in 
R3.  ;-)

So often I think that mezzanines are not the answer sometimes to 
what could just be added as a refinement to an existing function. 
 Don't like to do that much to functions that are often invoked in 
looping or iteration routines.

Paul, what's the advantage behind what you need? The way constructs 
are written now is standard REBOL syntax.

currently constructs will perform the chain assignment.

It only looks like "chain assignment", it's really nothing special.

Well we love chain assignment - when we want it.  Don't like it when 
we don't want it.

when don't we want it?

What cases do you have?

Paul, what you are saying is "we love passing arguments to function 
calls - when we want it. Don't like it when we don't want it."

No Andreas, this is not passing about the passing of the arguments 
but the handling of the arguments.

The same argumet can be passed but it is how it is handled.

Chris, I had an issue where I was putting data into a block dynamically 
and then had a skip pattern over it so that every other word was 
turned into a set-word and then passed to construct.

As you can imagine that did a chain evaluation that I didn't want.

Then make sure to prepare a block that does what you want.

There was actually a bit more that it did in removing some data but 
anyway the point is that it cause some values to get the next value 
in the chain.

Yes Andreas could do that but your missing the point.

The point isn't about whether or not I can do that.  I already do. 
 The point is that it offers more for the construct function to do 
at what I believe would be less cost with more to gain.

This the way you guys should think about REBOL.

Shouldn't always be about - just creating a new mezzanine.  Think 
about the cost of the mezz verses an enhancement to existing code.

Paul what you are asking is that the construct function should rather 
arbitrarily rewrite the block argument it is passed.

huh? - not at all.

construct/as-is [a: b: 2]

Why would that be so difficult?

Paul, set-word!s are syntax for SET. [a: b: 2] is syntactical short-hand 
for [SET 'a SET 'b 2]. SET returns sets a word to a value and returns 
that value. If you don't want to pass the result of (SET 'b 2) as 
argument to SET 'a, then just don't do it.

The block argument doesn't have to change at all - just the handling 
of it.

Yeah, Andreas, you would have thought I woulud have figured that 
out since I have been doing REBOL since 1998.  That must be something 
new.  ;-O

Now for real, it was just a request for something rather not as complex 
as the fear around it.

Great, then write /as-is as a mezzanine for now and propose it to 
be included.

Paul, you're basically asking for REBOL to do a fundamental change 
to its syntax inside construct.

with 2 blocks it's easy, one for the definition, one for the assignement.

>> assign: funco [spec vals][append construct spec vals]
>> assign [a: b: c: d:][c: 2]
== make object! [
    a: none
    b: none
    c: 2
    d: none
]

Explain what you mean by fundamental?

Am I asking for the construct code to be change - duh!