[REBOL] Re: Slashdot REBOL mention
From: rotenca:telvia:it at: 5-Nov-2001 17:33
> I think, that it can be paraphrased as follows: "Rebol has very simple
> syntax".(no keywords, little punctuation, etc.)
Not only: Rebol has little fixed semantic (keywords).
> > I'm not sure. I think that semantic refers to the meaning of words, not to
> > syntax rules. When I listen the word "semantic",
> > I think to Bind and Context and to the fact che no word in Rebol has a
> > outside a given context (no keyword).
> These all are semantics. Consider the following code:
> [ a: | "1"]
> Syntactically it is Rebol. Even if you knew the binding of the words you
> wouldn't know what is the meaning of it as a whole, because it would depend
> on the way how would you interpret it. The meaning (the semantics) differs
> if we use the code as an argument of DO or as an argument of PARSE, etc.
For me, semantic + syntax = meaning. Semantic and syntax are two different
fields and togheter make the meaning of a sentence. Your vision makes no
difference between meaning and semantic. So we are using two different notion
of semantic. In few words, for me:
syntax: sequence of words
semantic: meaning of words
The meaning can change if you change semantic (bind) or if you change syntax
(parse or other), but it is not the same thing which you are changing.