[REBOL] Re: Context - code included- 2nd version
From: lmecir:mbox:vol:cz at: 14-Sep-2001 11:53
----- Original Message -----
From: Holger Kruse <[holger--rebol--com]>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 2:40 AM
Subject: [REBOL] Re: Context - code included- 2nd version
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 02:07:22AM +0200, Ladislav Mecir wrote:
> > Then, what easily reversible (by "reversible" is meant that it can
> > a relation between a word and a value and, vice versa, its reversed
> > can describe a relation between a value and a word) wording using less
> > eight words not implying a static reference is available?
> Technically, the relation is only from the word to the value, not the
> way around. No reference is possible from a value to a word that evaluates
> that value.
Nobody objected against the formulation Gregg offered, so I think, that the
following formulations/reversed formulations should be acceptable:
Word can be used to refer to a value
<=> "Value can be referred to by a
Word refers to a value
<=> "Value is referred to by a Word"