[REBOL] Re: Cunning use of [], () & {} in R# and in future? Rebol versions?
From: moliad:aei:ca at: 19-Oct-2003 15:29
before I start,
I don't want you to know that I agree to most of what you say in theory, I'm
just trying to see if there isn't a way to extend the base syntax in a way that
code is shorter, and easier to read. Since we are in email, the tone gets
perceived by the reader, not sent by the writter... I've had bad past experience
in this kind of on-going discussions before (but not on this list :-)
I love philosophy so, nothing here is personal... :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Irwin" <>
> It may be clear to programmers that are familiar with that notation,
[ start : end ] Seemed clear to me, the first time I read it. a month. ago (I'm
not a python expert, believe me... I generaly hate it)
I even tought it used similar rebolish syntax...
advanced features get used by advanced users... a lot of the code I see from
the guru is hard to read for me, simply because it uses tricks I have not
stumbled on yet... The words are all similar, but when looking at them, they
seem to have no meaning.
have you tried going through all the view code... there is much to learn, but
darn some of it is almost impossible to grasp.
another example is the series/:index notation I mean, really that wasn't
obvious, although logical. Eventually, when a programmer gets to a point where
he needs that notation, he jumps on the list and gets the answer... I've seen it
already a few times this year...
> people are in-between and would understand the basic range notation,
> but would have to learn any extensions to it).
nothing is clear in rebol, until you've programmed in it a few months. words
not being variables, for example, is the basic thing in rebol which goes
unnoticed until some weird thing happens in your code... its happened to all
experienced reboler (unless they where already well versed in lisp speak, I
guess).
> The n:m notation would conflict with time! values as well.
My guess is that RT can make sure that if they found a path value with a block
in it, they'd simply understand it as a range instead... isn't that what a
dialect is? context specific code?
> General clarity aside, my gut reaction to the path/block/slice
> notation isn't positive. I don't think it buys us anything in the long
> run, and it could have a pretty serious impact on things if included
> as a base syntactical change
it isnt really a change, its more of an addition, but I guess you mean that
people creating dialects and expecting paths, would have to handle range
notations too, then you are right, that it causes some mishaps. But then most of
the code I get from this list already isn't supported in older versions of
rebol... especially view v1.2.3
> excerpt: func [
[...]
> ]
cool func !!
----------------
don't want to look picky but
a: 1
b: 5
excerpt b [a to b]
I know someone will say do this:
excerpt b compose [(a) to (b)]
but then, the idea behind the discussion starts loosing most of its sense.
The idea I find, is that sometimes, lines of code get sooo long when a simple
new notation could address them.
cheers!
-MAx
