World: r3wp

It's a script, you said scripts

and that's the whole point. if you load a script and then save it, 
the original script should be affected as little as possible

I also said functions and objects. That means function!, closure! 
and object! values, not their source.

Yes, and that's the strawman. Those literal objects will only be 
written from a script if it contained them in the first place.

{And it definitely *won't* be "as close to original as possible".} 
- this is a Goebbels' truth, would there be any example?

I gave one above.  if you try and save/all cross-referencing object! 
values the mold fails.

Yet another example of a Goebbels' truth:

>> do mold quote (1 + 2)
== 3

in fact basic SAVE fails as well.

Max, you did not give any example, that would not deserve the "strawman 
prize", your DATA surely is not a DED

BTW, my above DO example demonstrates quite pregnantly, that DO isn't 
a "counterpart" of MOLD

I don't get what you mean by strawman prize?

maxim, you have a good point regardign serialising circular datastructures 
and similar stuff

the objects could be within a block of data that you are trying to 
serialize... it would still fail.

but it is a different issue than what we are discussing here

You built a strawman, since your example does not relate to the subject 
at all. The subject is: SAVE is not good to process DED.

but SAVE is not only for DED, THAT is my point.

and in any case, you could have objects within your DED and SAVE 
would fail.

(*could* fail)

There is nothing that can be used to process non-DED and I agree 
with that, but that is a completely different subject

no, you could not

where is the DED defined?

LOAD

Data Exchange Dialect, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REBOL#Syntax
, if you do not know what it is

{but SAVE is not only for DED, THAT is my point.} - that is not a 
point, that is a falsehood. SAVE is not even for DED (SAVE/ALL is), 
less so for non-DED data

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"?