[REBOL] Re: Correct Behaviour? Was False = 2 ????
From: agem:crosswinds at: 3-Jul-2001 3:35
RE: [REBOL] Re: Correct Behaviour? Was False = 2 ????
[ryanc--iesco-dms--com] wrote:
> [agem--crosswinds--net] wrote:
>
> > RE: [REBOL] Re: Correct Behaviour? Was False = 2 ????
> >
> > [ryanc--iesco-dms--com] wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Quick & Dirty REBOL User Poll.
> > > >
> > snip
> > > > 2. Should 0, None & False be equivalent
> > > > for 'PICKing values from a series! and
> > > > return the FIRST or index 0 value whereas
> > > > True and 1 would return the SECOND or
> > > > Index 1 value?
> > >
> > > Yes, it should, but I dont imagine it very useful. Just would
> > > make good consistency and sensibility though, and probably an
> > > elementary change, so therefore should be implemented. I would
> > > expect it was intended to work this way, but someone probably
> > > goofed.
> > >
> >
> > pessimistic approach. iam used to yes/no, true/false,..
> > also [pick["got it"] false] gives none, like if.
> > lots more elegant.
>
> Hmm, it is kinda elegant that way.
>
> >
> > OTOH, should [to integer! true] throw error?
> > theres no need to give logic values implicit integer meaning.
> > we have [pick[1 0] logic] if we need it :-)
> >
>
> Logic values do have an implicit integer meaning, 0 false, and 1
> true. This is firmly accepted amongst electronics world.
>
are rebol-users electronic? true, on, yes / false, off, no
in human & rebol world.
handle / ignore in a way.
so [ok's: ok's + to integer! is-it-right?] makes sense
and [pick["we got it"] is-it-right?] makes sense too.
IMHO thinking with action on "false, off, no" is not so common,
more digital "not not" thinking.
needs additional brain <-> code -translations.
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > cheers folks,
> > > >
> > > > Mark Dickson
> > > > --
> >
> > > --Ryan
> > >
> >
> > ;-) Volker
> > --
>
> Ryan Cole
-Volker
