World: r4wp

Or should I put in stubs based on how they work in REBOL.

TBD marks are more helpful for now, you can put stubs from REBOL 
in comments, so when implemented, I would just uncomment it.

So you want:

; TBD: "Include Red header as a loaded value"

Not

TBD: Include Red header as a loaded value

Correct?

Right, that's a good solution.

Got it.

Sorry, I mean otherwise.

Ummm, which one?

Including a TBD: header in the doc-string is better.

Ah, OK.

I have extended FUNCTION to collect iterator counter words. Will 
push the changes tonight:

red>> f: function [] [repeat i 5 [print i]]
== func [/local i][repeat i 5 [print i]]
red>> f
1
2
3
4
5
red>> i
*** Error: word has no value!

Doc, please be sure to leave something for old REBOLers to complain 
about, or they won't be happy. ;-)

I'll try, but no promises. ;-)

:-)

For MOLD/ALL, are you calling it "serialized" format in Red? And 
I assume that's a TBD at this point.

/ALL is TBD.

Just from quick tests and a glance at code.

What is the latest consensus for that naming in R3? I like the "loadable" 
format expression but I'm not sure it is the best one.

No: without /ALL: "source" format, /ALL: "loadable" format?

No => So

For FORM I have:
	"Returns a string representation of a value."
and for MOLD:
	"Returns a loadable string representation of a value."

Ah, OK.

FORM is used to create a human-friendly format. The description should 
hint for that.

Returns a source format representation of a value.
		value	  [any-type!]
		/only "Exclude outer brackets if value is a block"
		/all  "TBD: Return value in loadable format"
		/flat "Exclude all indentation"
		/part "Limit the length of the result"

Sounds good to me, maybe Ladislav or BrianH would like to be nitpicking 
about it? ;-)

I'm sure they'll help improve things. :-)

FORM:  "Returns a user-friendly string representation of a value."

OR

FORM:  "Returns a value as a user-friendly string."

I prefer the former.

OK.

So this for MOLD?

Returns a source format string representation of a value.

i.e., include "string"

Looks ok to me.

Got it.

Can we use the ROUND doc strings from REBOL, since Ladislav and I 
wrote them outside of RT?

I know ROUND is TBD, and you probably want it native, or you could 
use the old mezz version.

Even though REBOL uses /dup for APPEND and INSERT, would /dupe be 
a better refinement name?

Isn't that to fool someone?

Also, perhaps human-friendly instead of user-friendly?

It can be, but it's also the standard abbreviation for duplicate.

I'll let Doc say if it's for humans for users.

ROUND: a bit premature, we still don't have a float type in Red.

Or you mean doc-string: sure you can.

Forth and RPL (I've done a lot of code in RPL long time ago) use 
DUP as abbreviation for "duplicate".

I see no need to make arbitrary changes from Rebol unless we have 
something to gain.

(Bookmark it, you might throw at me that quote someday in the future 
after I make a purely subjective and arbitrary change from Rebol. 
;-))

version.r seems to be missing from the repository

https://github.com/dockimbel/Red/blob/master/version.r

Sorry, it's probably missing from my build recipe

Has anyone tried APPEND/DUP?

red>> s: copy ""
== ""
red>>
red>> append/dup s #" " 10
== 10
red>> s
== " "
red>> head s
== " "

red>> s: copy ""
== ""
red>> append/dup s #"1" 10
== "1111111111"
red>> length? s 
== 10
red>> s
== "1111111111"

There aren't any tests of refinements to append yet. I'll start an 
append-tests.red file for them inlcuding your 10 spaces test Gregg.