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

[REBOL] Re: Core 2.5.5 Beta Versions

From: g:santilli:tiscalinet:it at: 25-Feb-2003 11:58

Hi Joel, On Monday, February 24, 2003, 5:57:57 PM, you wrote: JN> From my "abstract" POV, the phrase "the third child in the family" JN> is a reasonable phrase, even when the phrase "the family" is allowed JN> to take different meanings at different points in time. Even if we I agree, and REBOL handles that very nicely, with:
>> pick [1 2] 3
== none Notice that I never liked:
>> third [1 2]
** Script Error: Out of range or past end ** Near: third [1 2] while Ladislav suggest this to be applied to PICK too. Out-of-range series are a different issue IMHO. If you ask yourself the question: "is the child you have in front of you the third child?" then the answer "there's no third child in this family" seems reasonable to me. JN> In the same way, I think of the phrase "the third position of the JN> series" as a reasonable (abstract, non-implementation-dependent) The third element yes, the third position no, if we think of position as a possible state for a series value, IMHO. I.e. to the question "where am I?", why should I get the answer "nowhere"? Of course, we can define series differently as an infinite space where you can place values; if they are infinite, you can move forward and backward as you wish, even if the series is empty. But the current concept of series is a finite sequence of values. JN> asking "Which element have we been examining through this reference?" JN> and being told "3". Again, it's not a problem for me as long as we redefine the concept of "series". As I see them now, the answer above makes no sense for an empty series. JN> I'm simply asking for consistency. Letting NONE universally represent JN> "There is no answer to your question." would seem to me to be a big JN> step forward, and *away* from what I consider to be unnecessary, JN> confusing, and implementation-dependent inconsistencies, such as I agree wholeheartedly. I'm sure Lad has to object to this, however. :) JN> but, of course, it currently can't. JN> >> index? b JN> ** Script Error: Out of range or past end JN> ** Where: halt-view JN> ** Near: index? b Hmm, should it return NONE? (This question is probably more serious than it could look. :) JN> However, I'd be truly horrified if my assistant dealt with the JN> one-child situation by giving me information about the first/only JN> child of the family and making the secret resolution to tell me JN> thereafter about the first child of any subsequent family. Yup, and that's why I'd use PICK and not AT in that case. :-P Regards, Gabriele. -- Gabriele Santilli <[g--santilli--tiscalinet--it]> -- REBOL Programmer Amigan -- AGI L'Aquila -- REB: