Issue #1: Difference Discards Duplicates From Both Inputs
Firstly, difference shouldn t be thought of as a "subtraction" operator. It gives you one of each element that is unique in each block:
>> difference [1 1 2 2] [2 2 2 3 3 3]
== [1 3]
>> difference [2 2 2 3 3 3] [1 1 2 2]
== [3 1]
So you d get an equivalent set by differencing with [a: 1 b: 1] and [1 a: b:]. This is why the second 1 is missing from your final output. Even differencing with the empty set will remove any duplicate items:
>> difference [a: 1 b: 1] []
== [a: 1 b:]
If you re looking to actually search and replace a known sequential pattern, then what you want is more likely replace with your replacement as the empty set:
>> replace [a: 1 b: 1] [b: 1] []
== [a: 1]
Issue #2: Function Equality Is Based On Identity
Two separate functions with the same definition will evaluate to two distinct function objects. For instance, these two functions both take no parameters and have no body, but when you use a get-word! to fetch them and compare they are not equal:
>> foo: func [] []
>> bar: func [] []
>> :foo == :bar
== false
So another factor in your odd result is that f: is being subtracted out of the set, and the two (different) empty functions are unique and thus both members of the differenced set.
R2 is a little weirder than R3 and I can t get :o/f to work. But the following is a way to get an artificially correct-looking version of the difference you are trying to achieve:
>> foo: func [] []
>> o: make object! [a: 1 f: :foo b: 2]
>> difference third o compose [f: (:foo)]
== [a: 1 b: 2]
Here you re using the same function identity that you put in the object in the block you are subtracting.
In R3, difference does not support function values in this way. It may relate to the underlying implementation being based on map! which cannot have function values as keys. Also in Rebol 3, using difference on an object is not legal. So even your first case won t work. :(
Issue #3: This isn t how to add and remove properties
In Rebol 3 you can add properties to an object dynamically with no problems.
>> obj: object [a: 1]
== make object! [
a: 1
]
>> append obj [b: 2]
== make object! [
a: 1
b: 2
]
But as far as I know of, you cannot remove them once they have been added. You can set them to none of course, but the reflection APIs will still report them as being there.
If you want to make trying to read them throw an error you can set it to an error object and then protect them from reads. A variant of this also works in R2:
>> attempt [obj/b: to-error "invalid member"]
== none
>> probe obj
== make object! [
a: 1
b: make error! [
code: 800
type: User
id: message
arg1: "invalid member"
arg2: none
arg3: none
near: none
where: none
]
]
>> obj/b
** User error: "invalid member"
R3 takes this one step further and lets you protect the member from writes, and even hide the member from having any new bindings made to it.
>> protect obj/b
== obj/b
>> obj/b: 100
** Script error: protected variable - cannot modify: b
>> protect/hide obj/b
== obj/b
>> obj
== make object! [
a: 1
]
If you need to dynamically add and remove members in R2, you might also consider a data member in your object which is a block. Blocks and objects are interchangeable for many operations, e.g:
>> data: [a: 1 b: 2]
== [a: 1 b: 2]
>> data/a
== 1
>> data/b
== 2
And you can remove things from them...
>> remove/part (find data (to-set-word a)) 2
== [b: 2]
It all depends on your application. The main thing object! has going over block! is the ability to serve as a context for binding words...
