World: r3wp

hard to tell :)

My comment also showed the downside: You will no longer be able to 
rely on INDEX? returning an integer. Though in balance I am in favor.

I dislike useless error bombing, as I already said

I want to write simpler code too

I hate having to trap for errors when I always have a default behaviour

#none is the ideal pass-true value. All your codes would be delighted 
by such feature

I also dislike useless error bombing. Though I am in favor of *useful* 
error bombing; not the case here though.

*pass-thru

You can thank ASSERT for making LOAD more reliable in R3 than it 
is in R2. Use it yourself to the same effect :)

In contrast, I don't think that NONE = INDEX? NONE is *necessarily* 
an error. You can screen with ASSERT or EITHER when it is.

Currently, just a bunch of natives have been tweaked in that sense.
remove, take, (and some other i can'"t remember now).

But there is no reason to restrain the invasion of the pass-thru 
behavior.


Indeed, just stop the propagation when a control flow function is 
reached :)

Is anyone analyzing rebol code to look for awkward sequences that 
might be solved by changes in functions?

Not systematically yet, but yes on an ad-hoc basis for a few years 
now. Even during the GUI design phase before the first 2.100 public 
alpha.

Not so easy to identify, and you have to recruit some Rebolers to 
your cause, then there is the last obstacle. How to summon Carl...

...which you do through CureCode, and messages in R3 chat.

Don't give all the secrets...

for free :)

The real problems blocking systematic fixing of awkward code is:

- A lack of a large enough set of R3 code to examine. R3 is already 
different enough from R2 that the code isn't comparable in this way.

- Not having metrics for "awkward". We've been eyeballing it so far, 
and meijeru and I have been the most systematic about that approach.

But we've made a rather large set of changes to R3 already that fix 
most of the R2 awkwardness.

I've give you one awkward idioms for free, pretty common.
>> unless find serie value [append serie value]

i'm bored to have to write such code again and again

prerebol it

ahah

APPEND is a modifying operation. This is an excellent example of 
where the propagation should stop.

Agree,  indeed

but not on the first parameter:
append find serie value value

Stupid me...

No, it's the first parameter that is being modified. In all other 
cases with none pass-through the value isn't being modified. Modifying 
operations are where the pass-through should stop.

if file: request-file [
	append files file
]

append/found files request-file

I lose the temp variable

In that case, I usually do 
>> append files [request file []]
no temp var

missing the ANY

before the block

mine is cleaner :)

Steeve, I suggested your unless find serie value [append serie value] 
trick earlier as an INCLUDE function, because it's the opposite of 
EXCLUDE.

matter of taste :)

Yep B

Yes Brian, I saw your ticket

bbl8r

Bed time, see you later Guys...

steeve.... about:  

unless find serie value [append serie value]

did you know rebol has a fantastic thing called.... a function?  
and yes... you are allowed to write these !!  ;-D

brianH I have been using include for years.

Max, did you know Rebol has these things called natives ?

yeah, but many series and loop funcs aren't natives anyways.

I believe the idea is to make the language more friendly and creating 
your own mezzanines doesn't help others

I use Include function for year too, but it does something totally 
different :-p

for years

well, 'include is a polysemic vocable, not the best choice.