[REBOL] Re: Tuples - Was Pair! thread
From: joel:neely:fedex at: 6-Feb-2002 14:46
Here's one example, Mark:
[Robbo1Mark--aol--com] wrote:
> Holger / Joel / Everybody
>
> being following this thread with interest,
> is there any reason then why comparators should
> work with tuples?
>
> >> 1.1.2 > 1.2.1
> == false
>
> seems reasonable to me...
>
Aside from the generic argument that all built-in types should
(IMHO) be allowed to participate in the widest possible range
of primitive operations, consider the fact that tuples can be
used to represent a wide range of concepts based on a small
ordered sequence of small integers: section numbers (e.g.,
in a document) and IP addresses are the first two that come
to mind. Simple lexical/dictionary order (compare first,
second, etc. parts until order is established or equality
is demonstrated by hitting the end of both simultaneously)
serves nicely as an ordering for both of those.
E.g., determining whether the IP address of a box lies within
some assigned range of addresses requires that tested address
be at least the low end of the range and at most the high end
of the range.
The fact that I can also use tuples to represent other concepts
with quite different semantics doesn't change this fact; it
simply means that I would need to raise my level of thinking
above the "raw" data type level if I'm using tuples to represent
one of those concepts. For example, tuples can also be used to
represent colors -- for which there are a variety of useful
orderings: lighter-than? darker-than? more-saturated-than? and
so forth. But if that's what I'm doing with tuples, then I
need to be thinking at that level and implementing those
tests appropriately (or using code kindly provided by someone
else who figured out how to do so and saved me the trouble).
> ... either that or insufficient thought goes into REBOL
> language design & implementation ...
>
NO!
I think it is quite possible for persons of good will to have
different views/priorities and to discuss those differences
(even quite enthusiastically! ;-) without resorting to real
or implied accusations of unprofessionalism.
I freely admit to leaning strongly in the purist/perfectionist
direction. However, I've done enough production software
development to understand completely that highly competent
developers who have specific practical goals, schedules, and
various other considerations, may very well come to different
conclusions than I might, and for totally wholesome reasons.
My questions about ordering of pairs were stimulated by a
confusing error message (which Holger quite readily agreed was
not the best possible phrasing), but I continued the exchanges
in the hopes of providing rationale for RT to reconsider the
present state of the language WHEN THEY HAVE TIME TO DO SO,
IF THEY EVER DO. And if they never do so, or (as has happened
before on this list) RT considers a discussion and declines to
accept an offered suggestion, that's OK too! Persons of good
will can disagree and still continue to work together.
I might also point out that -- over the years -- RT has been
VERY GOOD about accepting discussion and suggestions from the
folks on this list and acting on many of those to the mutual
benefit (I hope) of REBOL, RT, and the REBOL community. I
appreciate the attitude and track record of RT in this regard
very much.
I would like to think that we (list members) can use this list
as a forum for discussions with each other and RT to try to
understand (and occasionally make suggestions with the goal of
improvement) this language that we all enjoy using. However,
if my questions/discussion regarding language features are
used as the basis for uncharitable accusations about the very
folks that support this list and this community, I'll either
keep my thoughts to myself or communicate offline with RT.
-jn-
--
; sub REBOL {}; sub head ($) {@_[0]}
REBOL []
# despam: func [e] [replace replace/all e ":" "." "#" "@"]
; sub despam {my ($e) = @_; $e =~ tr/:#/.@/; return "\n$e"}
print head reverse despam "moc:xedef#yleen:leoj" ;
