World: r3wp

or do you want our programms looks like C or Java ones

map-each isn't long.  the 'each part is classification, and adds 
intent and meaning to what the function does.

steeve, this isn't a noun prefix.

that is a big difference.

they-like-long-names

map in this context is a verb.

REMOVE*, MAP*
Is that not enough ?

personnaly I'd prefer the use of 'EVERY instead of 'EACH

i vote for '*

more explicit that it traverses the WHOLE series to its end.

much better to include a totaly obcure character... sure steeve. 
 assembly style code is much better than C.

Steeve, if you want short wording then the question is whether the 
MAP-EACH block builder or the MAP map! constructor would be called 
more often. In mezzanine code creating map! values if more frequent 
than the use of the current MAP function.

aha, I didn't see the reason for *-EACH ... that makes good sense.. 
I like it!

'* is not obscur as convention, it's used by other languages too

rebol IS NOT another language... that was my point.  thanks for pushing 
it   ;-)

but in any case, REBOL style usually uses the '* as a notation for 
"pointer" or "reference to",

uh ? in your dream i guess

(more lost messages and dropouts)

Steeve, REBOL gets its speed of programming by preferring unshifted 
characters to speed typing of code, and English-like naming to speed 
reading. The syntax and naming conventions of REBOL were carefully 
chosen for good reason.

Steeve, other languages that use the * convention use it differently 
from each other. C-like languages use it for pointers. REBOL uses 
it for keeping the original definition of redefined words, like COPY* 
(not for pointers or references, Maxim, because those are implicit). 
The only language in major use that uses * to mean do-many-or-all 
is Regular Expressions.

brianH to me, a reference in rebol is not the same as a reference 
in C.  semantically they are equivalent, even if technically they 
are implemented differently.

note the use of equivalent... over... "the same"

meaning, keeping a reference to some data.   which is why we never 
use a-word* to store scalar values for example, but we will sometimes 
use them for copies of series, and words.

All assigned non-immediate values are references in REBOL, implicitly 
:)

bbl

I know  ;-)

why is why reference, in REBOL, has a different meaning to me.  if 
all words are references in C terms, then that concept has its own 
meaning in REBOL terms... IMHO.

Brian, don't lecture me, I know those obvious things too (Bad habit)
I just think '* is as good as -EACH and shorter.
So '* is the winner.

'* doesn't mean anything.  so its pointles... 


so you'd rather have acronyms for cunction names... just make  it 
totally cryptic?  ' * '  isn't english for any thing.  rebol doesn't 
name things in CS terms, it uses readable english.

cunction = function

English doesn't mean anything to me :)

guys, chill out :-) How often will you use map-each so that it will 
irritate you? Well, I do care for naming conventions too, but I have 
my reservations for where imo architecture goes wrong, like using 
read-text, load-plugin and similar stuff ....

Steeve :-)

quoi?   ;-)

speak for yourself ...  I will use it many times :)

I prefer just "map", but if there's going to be a name change, I 
think "map-each" is best - not only is it consistent with foreach, 
remove-each, etc, it's shorter than "map-every" or other alternatives, 
and feels like more natural English to me.

And I use my map all over the place

if nothing else, at least keep "map" in the name.  Part of the reason 
I dislike "accumulate" for fold - it's harder to find, coming from 
another language

Yes, map is useful.
Maxim, map this "baillon" on your mouth :-)

Izkata: it is not consistent with foreach, it would have to be for-each 
then :-)

my vote now: map-each , filter-each (isn't remove-each reverse in 
meaning) , fold-each (accumulate - I never know how to type this 
word) ... and something like find-each would also be very nice to 
have

Wow, what hemorrhage...
Why don't you add -EACH everywhere we deal with series then ?

Steeve .. do you say this to me because of find-each :) .. I mean 
a fing that uses block of code to determine what to find .. like: 
find-each x numbers [ x > 3 ]    ... in same manner as map/fold/filter 
work

I also wanted change-each :-)

i propose a new fork for rebol.
REBOL-EACH

hehe :)

fact is that find with a codeblock as criterium would be very usefull 
.. maybe it already exists under some other name? I remember someone 
proposing it not a long ago too

Pekr, the FOR* functions have their own naming convention, and for 
historical reasons "-" isn't included.

I use map reduce and seek  at jsgoo and I can do a lot of stuff with 
those (an appy inject for dictionaries) .. let's say you want to 
check if users with username and password exists in a block of users:

find-each U users [ all [ equal? U/user user equal? U/pwd pwd ] ] 
... much cleaner and more error prone than with foreach IMHO ( and 
these functions show intent of why you are looping through block 
of users )

(seek is similar to  what here would  be find-each for example)

Steeve, the *EACH functions have a really specific calling convention 
and all have the same bind/copy overhead for the code block. The 
other series functions have neither of thoise characteristics.