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

[REBOL] Re: Sameness - a pragmatic approach.

From: lmecir:mbox:vol:cz at: 12-Feb-2003 7:05

Hi Romano,
> Hi Ladislav, i want to fire another shot in this sameness war :-)
It would be stupid from me to try to not allow you to find your own definition, with which you would feel comfortable.
> Do you want that i think that v has been inserted at the first position? > > Or do you want that i think that i can't distingue the FIRST 1 by the
> one.
What I wanted to underline is the fact, that I supplied a function solving the problem optimally, i.e. giving us as much information as we can get, not less.
> I instead think that the same? function is undefined for scalar value.
Although this looks like a simple sentence, it isn't so. I will translate it to the form I understand: "We should define the SAME? function, that would be undefined for scalar values". I have got only two objections: 1) Nobody has defined what is a "scalar value" in Rebol (is it a date?), at least I haven't seen any complete definition. When the definition will be complete, there is a second objection: 2) Such a function wouldn't do as well as my IDENTICAL? for solving the discussed problem. You may think, that such a function would do better for an "average" task, but I am skeptic about it.
> When scalar value are passed to function, the function receive a copy of
> value.
That is your terminology. I am using a different one, nevertheless, I can adjust myself. The biggest trouble may be, that your terminology isn't compatible with the official documentation at all. (Still OK with me as long as I can discern them). Ciao -L