World: r3wp

The rule in bug#667: "We are trying to keep our breaks in compatibility 
of legacy functions limited to semantic changes, removed or changed 
options and such, and only when necessary (see #666). Some legacy 
functions have been removed altogether. None have been renamed yet 
- except as in the example above, with the old name still there."

Thanks, but we are discussing hypothetically here.

yes, but its a refinement, and even then, it still acts "locally" 
within that object (I'm assuming its using function locals on words 
in didn't bind to).

in = it

(And FUNCT/WITH would warrant a discussion on it's own.)

I posted #1640 just today related to it

But given the hypothetical blank slate, I'd still agree with Brian's 
first argument, namely the using FUNC as name for the simplest common 
case is sensible.

why not call it GOSUB   ;-)

Of course nothing to stop you from creating new names ...

F: :func
LF: :funct

Yeah, Ladislav, I just answered that ticket.

See bug#934 for the behavior that you rediscovered in FUNCT/with. 
It is in the function docs strings that show up in its help.

OK, nevermind, it is a detail anyway

Yeah. We really gave that and every other detail of the behavior 
of FUNCT a great deal of thought. If only we had given that much 
thought to the name: FUNCT is sort of the default name - Carl made 
a blog about it, and then the discussion never went anywhere, so 
we stuck with the initial name because it was better than the other 
suggestions.

which blog was it?

Having trouble finding it. The function is more than 2 years old, 
and first came about during the first closed GUI development project.

http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/r3blog.r?view=0144

Note that I was in favor of FUNX rather than FUNCT :)

well, the pretty clear concensus was that funct was the least popular 
name by far   :-)

I too was in favour of funx

So we have Gregg to blame!

I find the typo quality of FUNX to be a downside now. It is harder 
to type FUNCT by accident when trying to type FUNC.

what typo quality?  because x and c are adjacent on the keyboard?

Then again, maybe others aren't having the same trouble with typos 
that I have been having lately (had to correct 6 in this sentence).

Graham, yes, that.

If you're a touch typist, x and c use different fingers ... so it 
doesn't matter if they're adjaxent or not

I was about to say that

I am physically incapable of touch typing.

we are going for the rest of the world!

funq
funk

mm, funx would be nice :)

Maxim, that is why I liked "funx" :)

but it has such a pluralist sound to it :)

x implies a break ... from past behaviours

I feel that when reading code, funx  sticks out very well from the 
rest, and it doesn't have that strange esoteric feel which funct 
 has.

Func extreme!

I am only partially to blame. I think, even then, I expressed concern 
about the beauty of the word funct. That said, I don't think funx, 
funq, or lfunc are any better. I believe a number of people were 
there and really tried to find a good name.

before we change the name, we had better get RT's opinion

RT = Rebol Tutorial :)

It really is getting a bit late to bring this up now. FUNCT is already 
in R2 as well, and is in most R3 code that has been written so far.

funct: :funx  ;-)


then just do a big search/replace on files with funct in them... 
can be automated in a few lines...

then = or

R3 is alpha ...

In response to an earlier comment by Maxim, not being a german-speaker 
I am not reminded of body parts. However, FUNCT reminds me of "perfunctory", 
which is an ugly-sounding name in English.

If we don't fix things in alpha .. when do we fix them?

getting a bit late
 != "too late"

the only thing I find funny about the FUNCT  is that pretty much 
everyone prefers something else  (sorry Gregg ;-)   


maybe Carl chose it knowing that everyone one would feel equal  ;-)

I would consider it too late if we don't do the fix before 2.7.8 
comes out, as that is looking like it will be the first really good 
R2 release. When it comes out.

Back-porting alpha functionality is always a tough call. I would 
prefer it if the existence of back-ported R3 functionality would 
not harm the flexibility we have while R3 is still in alpha.

Yup, everyone here, right now Max. ;-)  Give me a better option and 
I'm there.

Andreas +1