World: r3wp
[!REBOL3]
older newer | first last |
Andreas 2-Aug-2010 [4275] | mm, funx would be nice :) |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4276] | Maxim, that is why I liked "funx" :) |
Andreas 2-Aug-2010 [4277] | but it has such a pluralist sound to it :) |
Graham 2-Aug-2010 [4278] | x implies a break ... from past behaviours |
Maxim 2-Aug-2010 [4279] | 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. |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4280] | Func extreme! |
Gregg 2-Aug-2010 [4281] | 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. |
Graham 2-Aug-2010 [4282x2] | before we change the name, we had better get RT's opinion |
RT = Rebol Tutorial :) | |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4284] | 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. |
Maxim 2-Aug-2010 [4285x2] | funct: :funx ;-) then just do a big search/replace on files with funct in them... can be automated in a few lines... |
then = or | |
Graham 2-Aug-2010 [4287] | R3 is alpha ... |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4288] | 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. |
Graham 2-Aug-2010 [4289] | If we don't fix things in alpha .. when do we fix them? |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4290] | getting a bit late != "too late" |
Maxim 2-Aug-2010 [4291] | 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 ;-) |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4292] | 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. |
Andreas 2-Aug-2010 [4293] | 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. |
Gregg 2-Aug-2010 [4294x2] | Yup, everyone here, right now Max. ;-) Give me a better option and I'm there. |
Andreas +1 | |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4296x2] | 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. | |
Maxim 2-Aug-2010 [4298] | yes in this case, the functionality doesn't change, only a word label, its a much less tedious process. |
Andreas 2-Aug-2010 [4299] | Unfortunately, we don't seem to be able to come up with a better name anyway :) |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4300x3] | 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. | |
Gregg 2-Aug-2010 [4303] | We need that 5-second rule for editing AltME messages. I do that a lot myslf. |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4304] | 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?. |
Maxim 2-Aug-2010 [4305] | yes its like empty? and tail? I coudn't live without one or the other, though one is more stringent... last? and single? should follow the same path. |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4306] | As I said in that ticket, the strictness is an absolute feature. |
Graham 2-Aug-2010 [4307x4] | Funct may have been there for 1.5 years .. but I haven't started using it ... |
( much ) | |
It's in the network protocols ... | |
but then I can just put at the top funct: :funx | |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4311] | Really? We use it every chance we get in the mezzanines. Except where inappropriate, of course. It makes functions look cleaner. |
Graham 2-Aug-2010 [4312x2] | That's because I'm still developing with sdk 2.7.7 |
And as far as I can tell, the stuff you wrote has never been properly documented | |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4314] | Which has FUNCT. |
Graham 2-Aug-2010 [4315x3] | 2.7.6 .... I meant |
I didn't see any compelling reason to upgrade to 2.7.7 | |
and there were a number of reports, including one from Carl, to say that 2.7.7 sdk was broken | |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4318] | Nor would I suggest it, even though 2.7.6 has known problems. You can grab the rest from R2/Forward anyways. I would suggest waiting to upgrade until 2.7.8. |
Graham 2-Aug-2010 [4319] | Where exactly is R2/forward documented/? |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4320x2] | In the source. But only the changes from R3 need to be documented. For the most part the R3 documentation should apply. |
The whole point to R2/Forward was to replicate R3 behavior. And it does so wherever possible or practical. | |
Graham 2-Aug-2010 [4322] | R3 is alpha .. it seems to me a little odd to expect R2 users to have to look at R3 documentation for R2 functionality |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4323x2] | Not all of R3 is alpha. Some of it is quite settled. |
At the time of the last R2 release the documentation was being reorganized and no third-parties had access to it. So I couldn't update the documentation. | |
older newer | first last |