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

[REBOL] Re: new puzzle on sameness 1

From: lmecir:mbox:vol:cz at: 15-Feb-2003 9:05

Hi Romano, fine, it looks, that you decided to proofread my text one more time. ...
> I conclude that both same? and identical? fail to distingue all identical > values.
I do not understand.
> Given and > and > > > I must add that the classification of changes in the previous text are > incomplete: > > 1) some affect only one values (replacements) > 2) some affect all occurrences (mutations) > 3) some affect only some word occurrences (word-mutations)
I just wanted to discuss and classify two basic kinds of changes. Do you find the wording unclear in that respect?
> I must also add that all rebol value of any datatype! referenced by words
> "word-mutable".
That is a notion I didn't need.
> I conclude that a function like identical? is undefined for some rebol
> because it receives its arguments as "abstraction" which do not include
> the information needed to decide the identity ("two Rebol values are > identical, if they are equivalent for every purpose").
That is a principial difference in out POV's. The IDENTICAL? function *always* returns a result, i.e. it is defined for any Rebol values. In the above sense my terminology is much less confusing, than the terminology you are using.
> I should do others checkes, but now i think that a function like
identical? is
> only able to detect if two Rebol scalar value are strict-equal? or if two > "abstractions" of Rebol scalar value are the same. This only works if > "abstractions" are considered immutable by definition.
Again, a principial difference. My definition of the IDENTICAL? function didn't use the notion of mutability at all. Actually, the opposite is true. I used my definition of identity to define the meaning of mutability/immutability. Regards -L