[REBOL] On list! inconsistency [was Re: WYSIWYG programming]
From: joel:neely:fedex at: 30-Oct-2000 8:26
> > ... Most of the series references have
> > unaltered positions, but for the list! case, the
> > position is different.
> Yep. Lists are the black sheep of the series. They have
> absolute indexing instead of relative indexing. A list IS
> where it is. The reasons have to to do with what lists are,
> namely doubly linked lists, and how they are implemented in
EXACTLY my point. The user's life is made more awkward (having
to remember exceptions) to make the implementor's life easer.
THAT'S BACKWARDS and out of character with e.g., the lovely way
that net protocols are presented through an elegant, consistent
interface that PROTECTS the user from the underlying details
> It's a question of docs.
No. It's a matter of design. Someone CHOSE to put the burden
on the user instead of the implementor. Implementing list
mutations as a "black sheep" was a design/implemention decision.
Yes, all such decisions should be clearly stated, but clearly
stating the choice is different from addressing whether the
choice benefits or costs the user.