World: r3wp

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

We only back-port stuff when its behavior is settled. Not all of 
R3 is alpha. FUNCT has been consistent for 1.5 years.

As have all of the other backports. There are almost no backports 
that haven't been solid since before modules were introduced.

yes in this case, the functionality doesn't change, only a word label, 
its a much less tedious process.

Unfortunately, we don't seem to be able to come up with a better 
name anyway :)

This is why R2/Forward is still 2.100.80.* whrn R3 is 2.100.102.

whrn
 is an example of the typo I was mentioning.

Happens all the time.

We need that 5-second rule for editing AltME messages. I do that 
a lot myslf.

Another example is renaming SINGLE? to LAST? - a good idea, but likely 
to be done as adding the name LAST?, not removing the name SINGLE?.