[REBOL] Re: REBOL Enhancement Proposals (REPs)
From: joel:neely:fedex at: 25-Sep-2001 18:50
Geza Lakner MD wrote:
> Hello REBOLers,
> Why wouldn't we collect - following the path of Python
> Enhancement Proposals i.e. PEPs - REBOL Enhancement Proposals
> (REPs) ?
REBOL Technologies has already used the concept of REP ...
> Some of us certainly sent ideas to RT's feedback but why
> couldn't we share and discuss these information before
> transmitting it to RT's "magic cauldron" ?
... and some of them have come directly from discussions on
this mailing list in the past couple of years.
As an example, the /SKIP refinement to SORT and SELECT was
proposed and discussed on this list prior to its addition
Personally speaking, I'm always eager to hear from others on
the list about ideas for ongoing improvement. Whether the
discussion on the list reaches consensus (or not), and whether
RT agrees to immediate implementation (or not), I'm usually
stimulated to think hard about the issues raised and feel that
I benefit from the process!
> REBOL Enhancement Proposals
> #1 Immediate (paren) values in paths
> It would be a very nice and elegant construct
> if paths may contain immediately evaluated paren expressions yielding
> path fragments, not only words:
> a: [1 2 3]
> and instead of:
> b: 2
> probe a/:b
> probe a/(1 + 1)
> or with a twist:
> probe a/(b)
> I think that this modification is not simply a syntactic sugar
> but eliminates setting intermediate working words and using
> them only once - i.e. in the creation of a dynamic path value.
I proposed this one about a year ago. I'm still of the opinion
that it would help reduce namespace clutter and would simplify
an area of the notation that seems remarkably clumsy compared to
the clean elegance of many other parts of REBOL.
> #2 "Polymorph" multiple 'SET
> SET now expects a word to set. Words in objects seem to be
> buried deep, being not really suitable for an elegant multiple
> set operation:
> a: context [ b: context [c: none]]
> d: context [ e: none]
> The logical and straightforward way unfortunately does not work:
> set [a/b/c d/e] [1 2]
Just for clarification...
Could you explain why you would prefer the above SET expression
to the following?
a/b/c: 1 d/e: 2
Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.
-- Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929