World: r4wp

I guess it is still deep voodoo, just a different kind. :-)

Actually, it's fairly simple, think about a GUI app that sends a 
click event to your Red/System binding, how do you pass the event 
to Red code if you can't call it from Red/System. ;-)

Right, easy for people like me to use, but voodoo under the hood.

If you do voodoo, I can call you WitchDoc. ;-)

It replaces this:

; Call back into Red
			stack/mark-func ~on-action
			integer/push as-integer face
			integer/push action
			f_on-action
			stack/unwind
			stack/reset

For a callback with two arguments

It just pushes the Red/System arguments on a new Red stack frame 
and invokes the Red function. No black magic required. ;)

Don't tell me that. I want to imagine that it's *reeeallly* hard 
and bad things will happen if I even try to understand it. :-)

I was convinced about that for Unicode, and it didn't work out well 
;-)

Ah, one thing to not, the type casting shortcuts like: as-integer, 
as-byte, etc.. won't work within #call because the Red/System preprocessor 
is invoked too late.

not => note

That sounds important to document.

I would probably prefer it being called #callback, or some ppl might 
relate it to REBOL's  CALL :-)

Actually, it is related a bit, because in both cases, you are making 
an "external" call.

#call is more generic; you're not necessarily calling back

That's why I've opted finally for just #call.

A Red/System logic! is stored as integer!, right, not byte!?

Integer! yes.

Just one question - I can see refeinements again mentioned. Is that 
technologically it is not easy achievable, or will we get refinement 
support for #call and routines later in the future?

Doc - strange thing on Trello - I I would not have my link in the 
cache, Search on Trello.com does not show any results for Red, or 
Red programming language ... strange ...

I I would = If I would ....

Refinements: these are a matter of cost vs added value. It costs 
significantly to add refinements support to routines and #call, and 
the added value is small. So, it is possible to add them, but it 
falls in the "nice to have" feature list, not "must to have", so 
they are very low priority.

Does Red attempt to answer Carl's old question of passing big options? 
Carl wrote a document on this once, but I can't find it.

Essentially it was the idea of doing something else, when a function 
grows to have too many refinements, as this is both not very user 
friendly and reduces performance.

APPLY is there for that (not yet implemented in Red though).

ok

There's also the special /options (IIRC) refinement in Topaz that 
allows use to pass a block with set-words/value for each arguments 
(including refinements). That should be also a solution to consider.

I've sometimes thought /WITH would be a good name for the arg block 
idea, though it would conflict with a few existing cases.

Agreed, I'm using that when marshalling Red to Red/System parameters

I have consolidated the current Red/System V2 wish list  on the Github 
wiki - https://github.com/dockimbel/Red/wiki/Red-System-v2-Wish-List

Thanks Peter. Could you please add a message like "Wish moved to 
v2 wish list on wiki" to each related tickets and close them?

Also, having details for #27 and #28 would helpful. As is, I don't 
understand them.

Also each wish has to be motivated by some need, else it will be 
likely rejected if the need is not obvious to me.

Quite extensive list. If there are no show-stoppers, I would proceed 
with Red first, e.g. getting us onto IOS, Android, bindings to native 
APIs, I/O, parse, etc. :-)

A lot of that needs to go through Red/System, so it's hard setting 
priorities

I've closed the issues and will write up #27 and #28 (as I understand 
them) and add to the needs as I understand them.

Nice list, Peter

Quite a few are youre Kaj :-)

Yes, but it's important to have them in a more structured form

Right, having a more formal specification like Python's PEP would 
be nice.

Pekr: it's for Red/System 2.0, so it's not a short-term task.

Also, probably half of them will be rejected, or superseded by other 
features.

No rejected items yet, looking good! Point 5 and 17 both have a wish 
for a BREAK.

What do we need GOTO for in Red? GOTO END-PROGRAM ;)

Array type +1

Arnold: I haven't processed the list yet.

Array type + 2, no matter if you processed it :-)

Having an array type is probably not as useful as you might think. 
The only real advantage I see is the ability to add optional bound-checking, 
which should protect from a whole class of errors.

Array syntax is a little more "average" programmer friendly than 
allocating memory and user pointers though :-)