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

[REBOL] Re: Context - code included- 2nd version

From: g:santilli:tiscalinet:it at: 14-Sep-2001 22:13

Hello Ladislav! On 13-Set-01, you wrote: Some cents from me... LM> You are contradicting yourself above, aren't you? In the LM> first sentence you are telling that there are no "Special LM> Words" and in the second one you are telling, that you call LM> them "words not bound into a context". It depends on the meaning you give to the word "special". If I read "Special Word" I think of a word that is different from Normal Words ; your special word is, instead, a word with its context attribute set to null (or none, if you prefer :). LM> ("words not bound into a context") exist, the collection of LM> such words exists too. The only point you can make is, that The fact that you can collect something does not mean that the collection exists. You could collect all the gold in the world, but does the collection of all the gold in the world exist? Again, it depends on the meaning of the word "exist". For an explanation to be easily understandable, words should be used with their common meaning, or it should be stated that they are being used with some different meaning. Your "Special Context" has no attributes or properties. I don't find it useful, but this is of course only MHO. LM> Context (to translate it to your terminology: has got a LM> reference, that is the same as the reference that any other LM> "word not bound to any context" has). I see your point, but the notion of "no context" seems to me simpler and more understandable (i.e. less confusing) than the notion of "special context". LM> This is a legitimate POV, of course. I am motivated by those, LM> who don't think that the "replacement of the terms" is enough LM> to be able to understand the rules of the game. Of course you are right. But isn't it better to use terms that are easier to understand and require less definitions and explanations? LM> Yes, the CFUNC-generated functions are performance-wise LM> unacceptable for some uses. The performance of LM> CFUNC-generated functions might become more satisfactory if LM> it were implemented natively using a highly optimized LM> algorithm. OTOH, in that case the performance might be even LM> better than the performance of the functions generated by LM> FUNC now. I still tend to think that not having to do anything is faster than having to do something (i.e. rebinding, or just creating a new context). With the current implementation the programmer has the choice. Regards, Gabriele. -- Gabriele Santilli <[giesse--writeme--com]> - Amigan - REBOL programmer Amiga Group Italia sez. L'Aquila --