World: r3wp

but you need arms to hold them!

10/11 May? I'll be there.

And the vocabulary of weapons is a little limited.

ready, aim, fire
   
that pretty much covers the dialect

and reload?

and lock and unlock.)

Ladislav, it wasn't until you wrote those two small examples, that 
I finally understood what APPLY is about. :-)

what examples

charles, see the R3 blog on the APPLY function at the bottom of comments

What advantages does HASH have over regular blocks, I can access 
a regular block like a dictionary anyway

right ?

it's very fast

speed.... MUCH faster on lookup

IIRC slower on insert

I think the normal procedure is to manipulate your block like you 
normally would and then convert it to hash! when you want to do lookups

I posted something on the APPLY thing on empty argument blocks, which 
I think should produce an error. This made me think of whether there 
is a very easy way to tell how many arguments a function requires?

ah, first :+ == [value1 value ]

variable arg dispatching breaks a major premise of rebol dispatch 
mechanism.

Henrick. In scheme/lisp. 

apply :+ [] ;== 0

whichs is a very sensible result.

well, is it then not necessary to set up different rules for what 
it should output for different functions?

I am not sure what you mean. Another example is: 

apply :* [] ;== 1

Scheme gives out this results because 0 and 1 are *neutral* numbers 
regarding addition and multiplaction. That is the result is unaltered 
by those values respectevely.

these are arithmetic operations. what about other kinds?

Rebol functions can't accept a variable number of arguments with 
the exception of refinements. So the issue is becomes important. 
APPLY is kind of incompatible to the principle that * every  function 
has a fixed number of arguments*.

They can if you take advantage of the unset! datatype...  But it's 
not pretty and more confusing than it's worth

I just think it would be more straight forward with natives for performing 
arithmetics on blocks. It's more predictable.

predictable?

apply :* [] ;== 1 isn't predictable within REBOL terms, I think

APPLY just means run this function with the block content as args. 
So:


APPLY :+ [1 2 3 4]  is equivalent to DO [+ 1 2 3 4]  ;; using scheme 
semantics

If we stick with this definition an no varargs for functions then 
APPLY :+ [1 2 3 4] is impossible it actually should throw an error 
because the native '+ requires two arguments.

yes Jaime that is how I see it in REBOL too... so in rebol the last 
two args would be ignored if we use the current understanding

In which case APPLY with math ops is kind of lame compared to scheme.

how does scheme understand to continue grabbing values?  because 
its not hitting an action?

or because it servers args within an argument () ?

I APPLY was simply implemented as the DO translation; you will get 
tons of side effects. Because,


APPLY :+ [1 2 3 4] implented as DO [+ 1 2 3 4] ;== 4 (NOT 10 wich 
is the expected result).

Because in Scheme you can have function with variable number of arguments 
thanks to the parenthetical notation. (APPLY + '(1 2 3 4)) ;== (+ 
1 2 3 4)  and '+ is coded to handle variable arguments.

In scheme the parenthesis tell the function where the expression 
ends. In rebol the number of arguments tell the function where the 
expression ends. This is a very fundamental difference and the tradoff 
made when dropping parenthesis or any kind of expression delimiter.

exactly.

but we can just implement our functions with a single block argument 
if we wish... then its a moot point... no?

No. Because now you need to be passing blocks everyware. And doing 
composing for symbol to value replacement everyware.

For example:  1 + 2  becomes + [1 2], and then how you handle + [a 
b]. You need a prebinde code. Basically that reitroduces parens.

yes obviously, actually calling reduce all the time.

I've often wondered if I missed variable args, and it seems I don't 
miss them that mutch.  they seem less needed in rebol.

but refinements are hard to reapply.

which is why I then use blocks as above.

I guess it could be nice if the burden of calling reduce where on 
the function itself.

I actually like the ability of having variable args. It is very handy.

in the example of a function which accepts one variable length block, 
it could cause the prebind (reduce) itself as a pre-entry operation.

in this case it would allow a parens-like calling method, but we'd 
use blocks and the caller would not need to reduce the value explicitely.

obviously, the function args spec would have to be expanded a little.