World: r3wp

...the DO dialect doesn't, except for one: The word 'rebol before 
the header

 - actually, I would say, that the word 'rebol is a keyword of the 
 script specification dialect (i.e. I would make a distinction between 
 "plain Do dialect" and "script specification dialect (s)", there 
 actually are two variants of the script spec dialect, one for "normal 
 script", one for "embedded"script"

Thanks for the various explanations and examples.


My conclusion.....At the very least. use of LOCAL as a variable should 
be flagged somewhere as a potential gotcha. 


Consider the six R3 functions below. Some print NONE, some print 
999 -- not every developer will have enough guru-fu to know which 
do what:

local: 999
 f: closure [] [print local] f
 f: does [print local] f
 f: func [][print local] f
 f: funco [][print local] f
 f: funct [][print local] f
 f: has [] [print local] f

Sunanda, more than guru-fu, people just need to use SOURCE. :-) BTW, 
we could change /local to /some_unlikely_to_be_used_word, it's just 
a mezz change.

Right, Ladislav, I forgot to mention that it is R3's BIND that has 
the 'self keyword.

In R2 DO of a block or string didn't require (or use) the header, 
but DO of a script does. In R3 it's the same for DO of a block, but 
strings are treated like scripts now, and the header is optional, 
unless you need information in it. So DO script has a 'rebol keyword, 
but DO block doesn't. And DO block is what we think of as being the 
DO dialect.

Sunanda, I actually use 'local in some functions as a extra temporary 
variable. It has a good name for that use.

Ladislav, good catch on the op keywords in R2 :)

Btw, if RETURN and EXIT go definitional in R3, 'return and 'exit 
will effectively become keywords in functions.

Certainly not in all functions, if I understood Carl well, he seems 
to plan to have two types of functions:
- functions with dynamic Return
- functions with definitionally scoped Return

(and the word return: in the spec seems to be the discerning indicator)

And even if all functions get definitionally scoped RETURN/EXIT, 
they wouldn't become keywords at all.

A simple `return*: :return` should do the trick ...

It seems that I was quite wrong about local being a reserved word 
- it's all in how your write the function specification:


>> func-with-local-called-local: func [/local] [print local: "my 
local word"]

 >> func-with-local-called-local                                  
             
my local word

>> local

** Script Error: local has no value

** Near: local

... which also explains the "apparent" inconsistency in Sunanda's 
list of function creation mezzanines ... both funct and has always 
specify the local refinement in the funciton specification.

Ladislav, you keeep suggesting that there will be the option of dynamically 
scoped RETURN and EXIT if we switch to definitionally scoped. There 
is no indication that this is the case, and the increased complexity 
that would add to function calls is a serious indication otherwise. 
It's probably going to be only definitional or only dynamic, not 
an option of either/or. And either way we will need a workaround 
attribute: something like [throw] for dynamic, something else for 
definitional.

The word return: in the spec is compkletely unrelated to dynamically 
vs. definitionally scoped return, it is just to specify the typespec 
of the return value.

compkletely -> completely

Andreas, MAKE function! doesn't execute the code in the code block, 
it just makes the function. Your workaround applies to the code when 
it is executing. When the function is being made, the words 'return 
and 'exit will be treated specially in the function code block (if 
we go definitional for those functions), but when the code is run 
later the words are nothing special. It's similar to the situation 
with 'self and BIND or MAKE object!.

All in R3 of course.

you keeep suggesting that there will be the option of dynamically 
scoped RETURN and EXIT if we switch to definitionally scoped. There 
is no indication that this is the case

 - citation: "Allows return as a dynamic function to still work (when 
 return not in function spec.)" see http://www.rebol.com/r3/notes/errors.html

for me, it is an indication

That is why I said that the section in question needs to be rewritten 
and split up. As it is it makes no sense and mixes unrelated stuff.

It makes the above sense to me, so, I do not propose a modification.

And it wouldn't work with EXIT, since the dynamically scoped version 
of the function wouldn't be able to call the definitionally scoped 
RETURN. The whole section gives the impression of not being thought 
through. And we're in the wrong group for this discussion.

Easy to bind, the word is in the spec block.
, "Extra value on function frame." It doesn't mention two values.

It doesn't matter though - I'm sure whatever we all decide on will 
be fine.

Just a note, which may as well be put here, I guess: since R2, Rebol 
"mixes" definitionally scoped and dynamic constucts, and it looks, 
that this mix will stay with us even in R3

(but, of course, the proportions may change)

I understood Carl's proposal in the same way as Ladislav...

So did I ...

Continuing in the right group...

is there any word that would let me join two objects together?

make obj1 obj2

aha.. I can just use multiple make

or what you said.. even better in my case

cool things :)

it creates a new object, though. in R3, you can use the extend function 
to extend an existing object with one new value.

extend does not do that (though it could, just a mezz).
but this do it:
>> append obj1 body-of obj2

extend extends with a single value, where append can extend with 
any values.

Just for fun (it's a slow sunday today) I've wrote a rebol version 
of the code used as benchmark in this page http://tinyurl.com/5nezt9

here's the code:

REBOL []

person: make object! [
	_count: none
	_prev: none
	_next: none
	
	_construct: func [n] [_count: n]
	get-prev: does [_prev]
	set-prev: func [pr] [_prev: pr]
	get-next: does [_next]
	set-next: func [nxt] [_next: nxt]
	shout: func [shout nth /local aux] [
		if shout < nth [
			return shout + 1
		]
		aux: get-prev aux/set-next get-next
		aux: get-next aux/set-prev get-prev
		1		
	]
]

chain: make object! [
	
	_first: none
	_last: none
	
	_construct: func [size /local current] [
		repeat i size [
			current: make person []
			current/_construct i
			if none? _first [_first: current]
			if not none? _last [
				_last/set-next current
				current/set-prev _last 
			]
			_last: current
		]
		_first/set-prev _last
		_last/set-next _first
	]
	
	kill: func [nth /local current shout] [
		current: _first
		shout: 1
		while [not equal? current current/get-next] [
			shout: current/shout shout nth
			current: current/get-next
		]
		_first: current		
	]	
]

start: now/precise
iter: 100000
loop iter [
	current-chain: make chain []
	current-chain/_construct 40
	current-chain/kill 3
]

print ["Time per iteration =" (difference now/precise start) / iter 
]
halt

which give me:
Time per iteration = 0:00:00.00080234

802 microsecond that is the slower time of the benchmark, 

but not SO slow, php is near with 593 microsecond, jython 632 ... 
.(the test system is pretty like mine so i can compare the result)

There's a way to improve the performance?

if not = unless

also perhaps:

if none? _first [_first: current] = any [_first _first: current]

not equal? = not-equal?

Didn't check if there are some mezzanines in there, though.

a bit better:
Time per iteration = 0:00:00.00077844

any instance of IF can possibly be replaced by ANY or ALL.

get-prev: does [_prev]
set-prev: func [pr] [_prev: pr]
get-next: does [_next]
set-next: func [nxt] [_next: nxt]


These will also slow things down. I'm not sure if you can get rid 
of them.

jython? So python version emulated in JAVA is faster than native 
REBOL? :-)

Davide, try an R3 version too.

java is in the class of c++ in performance AFAIK

I remember the in 1998 there was a mame - java applet that could 
run phoenix at 100% of the velocity with no skipframe (I had a pentium 
100 Mhz at that time)

using _prev and _next instead of function the result is:
Time per iteration = 0:00:00.00056687

with R3:
Time per iteration = 0:00:00.00034359

I don't think, Java is as C++ in performace. C++ can be compared 
to C in performace, and Java is at least 8 times slower. See e.g.:
http://www.timestretch.com/FractalBenchmark.html