[REBOL] Re: ROUND function (like TRUNC, FLOOR, etc...)
From: joel:neely:fedex at: 20-Feb-2002 7:00
Hi, Brett,
Not that I would ever dissent, but... ;-)
Brett Handley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Well, okay, but for consistancy's sake, why wasn't 'to-object
> > chosen as its name?
>
> Hopefully the language designer will answer definitively, in
> between times my purely subjective thoughts..
>
> I'd sort of assumed that it was a forward looking change.
>
> Also, CONTEXT has an educational quality about it - it reminds
> me to think about where/when objects can be used. On this
> basis I was glad for its introduction.
>
The problem I had with the name is that the concept of "a context"
is very specific in REBOL, and that concept shows up in multiple
places. A function has a context, an object has a context, there
is a global context, and every application of USE creates a
context (at least AFAICT). That's a different idea from having
a "shortcut" for MAKE OBJECT! (especially as it saves only five
keystrokes...)
As I understand results from cognitive science and semantics, it
is harder to learn/understand two meanings for a word that are
almost-the-same-but-not-quite than two meanings which are really
different. Try having a conversation in which it's important to
know whether someone has said "a context" or "a CONTEXT", and I
think the point will be made.
I learned a very wise saying from my father:
Communicate not so that you CAN be understood, but so
that you MUST be understood.
(not that I always succeed... ;-)
-jn-
--
; sub REBOL {}; sub head ($) {@_[0]}
REBOL []
# despam: func [e] [replace replace/all e ":" "." "#" "@"]
; sub despam {my ($e) = @_; $e =~ tr/:#/.@/; return "\n$e"}
print head reverse despam "moc:xedef#yleen:leoj" ;