World: r3wp

Brian, my point is that 'test is NOT a lit word  as you can see here:

lit-word? 'test
==false

I have no beef with DO and how it works elsewhere.  Again, only how 
lit-word? and other functions work in that regard.

Try the lit-word 'test without running it through DO:
>> type? second [lit-word? 'test]
== lit-word!

Not my point Brian.  lit-word? says it isn't.

By the time LIT-WORD? sees the value, DO has already converted it 
to a word!, the way it is supposed to. LIT-WORD? works fine.

Anton must have read thru this because he narrowed down to the fact 
that I'm talking about what lit-word? returns when passed 'test as 
its argument.

LIT-WORD? is just a type test.

Brian, I don't care about what lit-word is actually doing.  I'm not 
trying to understand what it does.  I already get that part.  I'm 
saying it should be modified to identify 'test as a lit-word.

and 'test is a lit-word

You aren't passing 'test as an argument to LIT-WORD? whenn you do 
this:
lit-word? 'test
==false

What you are doing is *evaluating* 'test and then passing *that* 
value to LIT-WORD?. There's a difference.

No, lit-word? must be evaluating 'test.  nothing else is.

Trace it Brian.  The interpreter sees it as a lit-word.  It doesn't 
evaluate it to word!

DO is evaluating 'test. DO is the evaluator.

I'm not using 'DO

Yes you are, every time you run REBOL code.

Thats not true

IF runs DO, as does WHILE, EITHER, LOOP, ...

Functions do brian.  Which is my point that lit-word? could be modified 
to handle this.  You act like it can't be done.

Just because it doesn't show up in trace doesn't mean it doesn't 
happen.

Brian, if it was Do'ing the word then it would report back that it 
has no value when I do:

lit-word? 'test

Functions don't evaluate their arguments, the evaluator does. Your 
change to LIT-WORD? would break it. When you DO a lit-word! it returns 
the associated word! value. That is what lit-words mean in DO code: 
Literal words.

Just like DO treats set-words as shortcuts for SET, get-words as 
shortcuts for GET, etc.

Brian, my point is that I would rather have lit-word? do what it 
says it does.

It does that already.

Oh it does - does it?  Well let's check.

Tell me what datatype this is Brian:

'test

What context?  Is it being evaluated or now?

or not?*

Rebol from the command line, as well as a running script IS a 'do 
session, that's what we're trying to get at.  'do is what's converting 
the lit-word! into a word! before it reaches the function

Paul, when you write 

>>lit-word? 'test 

what is really happening is this: 

>>lit-word? ('test)

Paul, I agree with everything BrianH has said in this discussion.

When, you've typed something at the console:

	>> 'test	

, and you press Enter, it is as if this is happening in a script:

	do ['test]


The result is equivalent - a lit-word reduces to a word, which is 
returned.

yes, and
>> lit-word? 'a
can be written as
>> do lit-word? do 'a
or 
>> (lit-word? ('a))

As I said guys it is just me that doesn't like how it lit-word? operates.

As I said before I know what is happening but rather it didn't happen 
that way.

I wonder how you would make it work like you want, because that is 
up to the interpreter, not LIT-WORD?.

>> a: func [b [lit-word!]][return b]
>> a 'test
** Script Error: a expected b argument of type: lit-word
** Near: a 'test

I made one that works like I want and it doesn't use lit-word? at 
all

>> is-lit-word? 'test
== true
>> is-lit-word? first ['test]
== true
>> is-lit-word? "test"
== false
>> is-lit-word? 'do
== true

what happens with "is-lit-word? first [test]"  ?

That would be true also.

>> is-lit-word? first [test]
== true

See to me the question comes down to the fact that I wanted a function 
that tells me what the argument was passed to it as not what the 
function recognizes it as.

So then I have to determine what is a lit-word?  It is merely a word 
that is has the tick symbol at the beginning or is it a word that 
in affect is of the same characteristic as a word with a tick symbol. 
 I chose the latter since it is more in form with REBOL.

http://www.tretbase.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30&p=141#p141

So.. it looks to me like this is just what you wanted:  any [word? 
val  lit-word? val]
Is it, or does is-lit-word? do something I'm missing?

Almost does.  I fixed it up a bit for you to give you more of a match 
to my function here:


 a: func [val][if any [word? val lit-word? val][return true] false]

However, you used lit-word? which was what I was avoiding.

I would have to look at it much more to see how closely it matches 
but via the test posted here it seems to work.

Nope yours doesn't do exactly what I wanted.

Works for most cases but some important ones it fails on.