World: r3wp

in your first reply, did you mean "mold evaluates the object spec 
block"?

no, I definitely meant make.

Try this:
	make object! [a: 1 + 2 print "hello"]

then I don't understand: "mold/all, on the other hand, does not evaluate 
the object spec block.". should that not produce a lit-word in the 
object?

You can see both the expression 1 + 2  and  print "hello"  are evaluated.

Sorry, I meant when you evaluate the result of mold and mold/all.

What doesn't make sense to me is that MOLD presents the lit-word. 
I don't really care that they mold and load the same and what is 
evaluated after MOLD. It's MOLD itself that bothers me. :-)

Ok, first of all, trust me that the way it is is just perfect. Now, 
I have to think how to explain it well..

A first explanation attempt :-

MOLD's basic task is to provide the specification for the value being 
molded, so that, when DOne you get the original value.

MOLD/ALL's basic task is to provide the specification for the value 
being molded, so that, when LOADed, you get the original value.

The difference is, 

 do [ make object! [...] ]    will evaluate whatever is in the spec 
 block, whereas

 do [ #[object! [...] ]          will not, no matter how many times 
 you try it.

The first one relies on 'make being evaluated as the default native 
MAKE function that we all know and love, and the second one does 
not. A simple load is all that is required to build the object.

MOLD/ALL works straight from the the object itself, whereas MOLD/ALL 
goes "back further", returning code which *produces* the specification.

The best explanation should probably come from a sound definition 
of mold and mold/all....

you wrote MOLD/ALL in both cases in the line above.

I guess you meant "MOLD goes back further"

As I read here, I understand it. I also think that it would have 
been better for MOLD/ALL to be called SERIALIZE, because it is not 
an extension of MOLD, but perhaps a different mode. But I bet that 
Carl already has thought about this.

Ingo, yes.

As I remember, there was some debate about what to call mold/all 
when it was developed. We could probably just search some archives 
to find out...

SERIALIZE implies to me that there would be a target to serialize 
to, which is SAVE.

i.e. SAVE/ALL

disagree - check the expression "serialise to disk"

serialise means "turn into a series" ie. a string. That's all.

I have been thinking about this for sometime.  I'm thinking we need 
an alternative set of mezzanines for those that need performance 
and want to build something off the /base product.  Problem with 
existing mezzanines is that they need to maintain backwards compatibilitiy 
which means we may lack some of the performance we might gain from 
a current alternative.  The goal of the new set of mezzanines is 
to be driven from the most recent distribution of the REBOL platform 
R2.  Obviously, R3 should be accomplishing this task inherently.

However, would anyone use them?  Or would they just code as needed 
if they are going to use the /base product anyway?

Just some things to think about.

Kind of a niffty way to hide some code that I have been playing around 
with lately but it isn't full proof:

a: [] 
append a use [b][b: context [c: "Cool"]  does [b/c]]
d: first a

>> d
== "Cool"

>> source d
d: func [][b/c]

Essentially:
	d: does bind [print c] context [c: "Cool"]

Yep.

>> d
Cool
>> source d
d: func [][print c]

But, like your version, if we can get the word, we can get its context:
>> probe do bind [self] second second :d
make object! [
    c: "Cool"
]

yep it can never be full proof in R2 as far as I know.

fool proof

ahhh wasn't sure, lol

actually "foolproof"

maybe fool-proof?

full proof
 pertains to strength of alcohol.

indeed

Well... we can unset 'self, so that the above method does not work:
>> do bind [unset 'self] second second :d
>> probe do bind [self] second second :d
** Script Error: self has no value
** Near: self

does that hide it completely?

I haven't tested that much at all, so I don't know if that would 
break anything as rebol goes along...

I'm not sure if there is another way in, quite possibly there is.

Even if it does it might be useful in controlled situations.

I know you can hide some things by simply declaring an object and 
afterwards setting the objects self to a different value

>> a/self: 3
== 3
>> a
>> probe a
make object! [
    b: 2
]
>> a/self
== 3

See my code above.

That still doesn't stop BIND? actually... Need to unset 'bind? as 
well :)

that could cause way to many problems I would assume.