Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[REBOL] Re: The truth about scope

From: lmecir:mbox:vol:cz at: 14-Apr-2005 7:08

Hello Michael, ....
>I have no idea what you really mean. :-) I think you don't talk about the >position because of the block, >
.... I would say that my POV (as well as yours as far as I can guess) differs from Gabriele's POV in this respect. Gabriele seems (sorry for my "wild guess") to try to discern the following: string: "a string" block: reduce [string string] ; == ["a string" "a string"] While I am saying that the first element of Block and the second element of Block are identical and don't differ in any respect (i.e. it is just one Rebol string referenced twice), Gabriele seems to present a POV, that the first element is at the first position of the block while the second element is at the second position of the block. Such an opinion is an illusion, because the position in Block is not a property of the string. It is rather a property of the block, which surealy has "positions" or "places" able to refer to Rebol values. So, it is safe to say, that the first position of Block refers (currently) to the same Rebol string as the second position, while it isn't safe to say, that String has got (either first or second) position in Block (because it doesn't have such property at all).
>Besides that, I think I really just got what you meant with the "no-scope" >statement. >
.... I guess you understood Gabriele's argument. It is a fact that there is no scope - Carl usually says "indefinite scope" in Rebol. To say it more explicitly, it means, that the binding of words doesn't depend on their "positions" at all (like in the String example above, Rebol words don't "know" their "positions"). Ladislav