[REBOL] Re: Sameness - a pragmatic approach.
From: lmecir:mbox:vol:cz at: 11-Feb-2003 21:36
Hi Gabriele,
...
> Of course, and that is why the definition should be written down
> by the language designer. We can only base our discussion to the
> implementation, thus I don't see any problem with the definition
> of GSAME? since it looks very natural with the current
> implementation.
>
> Regards,
> Gabriele.
Let me cite from the above paragraph:
1) "the definition should be written down by the language designer"
2) "I don't see any problem with the definition of GSAME?"
My POV totally differs in both things:
1) I feel free to write down my own definition of the IDENTICAL? function,
my own definition of mutability/immutability, mutations/replacements etc.
and to prove their usefulness/optimality/fitness for a particular purpose as
well as propose them to the language designer as an improvement.
2) The definition of GSAME? doesn't exist for me as I have said before (you
simply cannot start your definition with the listing of the
mutable/immutable values). If that were the case and I was free to do it, I
could have said, that integers were mutable. That would be legal from the
definitional POV, but ridiculous otherwise.
Ciao
-L
