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

[REBOL] Re: REBOL Cookbook in Beta

From: nitsch-lists:netcologne at: 3-Sep-2003 20:14

Am Mittwoch, 3. September 2003 00:06 schrieb Michael J. Mastroianni:
> Hi Gregg, >
..
> That said, aside from well-designed functions > that work well together, or maybe the OO stuff > that I don't fully appreciate yet in REBOL, > what *is* that paradigm or structure that would > provide the clean utility of a pipe ? Perhaps > this is best implemented as an enhancement to REBOL, > as I believe the idea of a pipe is *very* elegant > and conducive to problem-solving in a way > that is very light and natural to understand. > > Maybe the way ports are implemented in REBOL would > provide a means to implement pipe-like functionality. > > When you break it down, REBOL *has* all the "stuff" > that you need to take data, transform it, transform it > again, and again, etc., ad nauseum until you get the > desired result. The problem for me is that instead > of seeing a clear linear flow of data transformations > that a pipe approach reveals, you end up with nested > transformations that might tend to obscure what you're > trying to accomplish. I.e., sort of the difference > between the following ideas > > a < data | b | c | d | e | f > outfile > > and > > write f(e(d(c(b(a(data)))))) > > I prefer the first for clarity, given my experiences > with the pipe idea. >
You nearly got functional programming. Only you use postfix, rebol prefix. that means read stuff | process | write stuff becomes write stuff process read stuff you may need parents while learning. or: |: func ["simply return value" v [any-type!]] [get/any 'v] write stuff | process | read stuff -Volker