World: r3wp

it is hard to use a logic argument when you refuse to discern nouns 
from other words, but, in that case, you are unable to stick to the 
function naming convention anyway, and I don't know what do you want 
to discuss

How am I refusing to discern nouns from other words?

Every variable name is a noun, in principle.

How is that not true?

I mean variable in the sense of traditional programming languages

we do not have "variable names" we have words

See above

foreach [cat? dog?] [1 2 3 4] [fight cat? dog?]

This would be the result of your rule

this would be the result?

*very unlikely*

Cats and dogs are nouns

so what

You said your rule applies to nouns

not my rule, please read the rule, I am not the one who wrote/defined 
it, I am only using it

No, you are interpreting it for us, while many of us have a different 
interpretation

To begin with, I never liked faces-of or faces? proposals.
faces
 should be enough.
Plural means that it returns a serie of faces.

It may be a static list (reference) or a constructed one (function), 
I don't bother.
The context give all the hints I need.
*-of is a lame and useless convention.

Because a property or a method is always the relative "-of" something 
else .

your interpretation is *quite exceptional*, how could I be able to 
get to the same one?

I agree, faces should be enough, unless that is likely to be used 
for something else in the same context, in which case you can switch 
to a convention for a more elaborate name

Ladislav, I'm just asking you how your interpretation works, and 
you said it applies to nouns

Are you saying, that you are unable to read the rule, and see, that 
it applies to nouns?

Are you unable to see that this rule has not been applied to most 
REBOL words?

Because it is a REBOL function naming convention, which you happen 
to not know, since you did not read it yet

I did read it

Why do you keep putting falsehoods in my mouth?

Then you should know, that it should not apply to most Rebol words

Why not? You say it's about all nouns

http://www.writingcentre.uottawa.ca/hypergrammar/nouns.html

A noun is a word used to name a person, animal, place, thing, and 
abstract idea. Nouns are usually the first words which small children 
learn. The highlighted words in the following sentences are all nouns:

    Late last *year* our *neighbours* bought a *goat*.
    *Portia* *White* was an *opera* *singer*.

    The *bus* *inspector* looked at all the *passengers*' *passes*.

    According to *Plutarch*, the *library* at *Alexandria* was destroyed 
    in 48 B.C.
    *Philosophy* is of little *comfort* to the *starving*.

According to you, all starred words (no rich text in AltME) should 
get question marks

For other people, just to make sure they understand even if they 
don't remember the wording of the http://www.rebol.com/r3/docs/concepts/scripts-style.html#section-10
convention:


- the convention applies *only* to function names, not to the REBOL 
words in general

- when picking a name for a function, any candidate is not a name 
yet, it is just a word/words, and it can be examined, whether it 
is a noun or not
- etc.

Most REBOL words hold functions, so what's the difference? And with 
all words, it's impossible to tell from the lexical notation if it's 
a function or not

The difference is, that when sticking to the convention, it is easier 
to find out, that:


DO is a function, PRINT is a function, GET is a function, LENGTH? 
is a function

So I ask again, what about the REBOL functions that don't conform 
to this convention?

of course, it does not make any trouble to add WORDS-OF convention, 
since it does not introduce any ambiguities

Using a question mark on LENGTH doesn't tell you that DO, PRINT and 
GET are functions

suggested reading: http://www.rebol.com/r3/docs/concepts/scripts-style.html#section-10

the convention for functions simpy is that:
  -they should (start with) verbs

  -if using a noun, it should have some special char to imply its a 
  function. (i.e. size? vs size)

also: http://www.rebol.com/r3/docs/concepts/scripts-style.html#section-11

words of breaks this convetion since it starts with an noun and isn't 
followed by a special char... I think that is the only point Ladislav 
is trying to make !!?!?

oops...    should be:   words-of

no, I was trying to make the point, that WORDS-OF may well be added 
as an alternative

(to the above doc article)

...since it is missing

...and since it does not introduce any ambiguities when added, as 
far as I am able to find out

You would have a stronger case if you would admit that it is about 
property getters, not about nouns as such

The documentation would make a stronger case if it wouldn't confuse 
nouns and verbs

Some nouns can also be used as verbs.

This is impossible in human language. What it means is that some 
nouns can also be used as function names

While I see the WORDS-OF naming convention as coming from the C language, 
I am not a C hater to the extent to refuse it. As some noticed, it 
may even make the source code more human readable as in:

    length-of series

versus

    length? series