World: r3wp

How is it different from replace/all ?

b: [[1] [[[1]]] [1]]

how do you replace/all the 1's in that with 2's?

I'd probably use parse, or Gabriele's rewrite function. How did you 
do it?

Mine is strictly a replace/all function it is much more tasking on 
the system but if made native could probably be cool

Will you only be replacing literal values, or doing general pattern 
replacement?

any occurrence even in embedded series

I got that :) I was wondering what kind of things you were searching 
for, to be replaced. Just literal values? Blocks?

practically anything

Interesting. How do you check for equality? Do you go by reference 
or structural equivalence?

well that is where it gets a little of a concern.  Currently, I only 
check for equal?

>> b: [[1] [[[1]]] [1]]
== [[1] [[[1]]] [1]]
>> replace-all b [1] [2]
== [2]
>> b
== [[2] [[[2]]] [2]]

Can also do this:

>> b: [[1] [[[1]]] [1]]
== [[1] [[[1]]] [1]]
>> replace-all b 1 2
== 2
>> b
== [[2] [[[2]]] [2]]

That is structural equivalence. Nice.

>> b: [[1] [[[1]]] [1]]
== [[1] [[[1]]] [1]]
>> replace-all [1] "1"
** Script Error: replace-all is missing its newval argument
** Near: replace-all [1] "1"
>> replace-all b [1] "1"
== "1"
>> b
== ["1" [["1"]] "1"]

It works very well

I would call it replace-deep, but cool.

Is it recursive?

yes

Doesn't take much

replace-all: func [series oldval newval /local sd][
        sub-ic?: func [sd][
            forall sd [
                either equal? first sd oldval [
                    poke sd 1 newval
                ][
                    if series? first sd [sub-ic? first sd]
                ]
            ]
        ]
        sub-ic? series
    ]

was written for a particular use I had but not for general use.  
It will have some limitations to be a mezzanine

It was built rapidly off of another function that I built in TRETBASE.

If you see a series it doesn't work on let me know.

I see some errors in it already in the code that I should patch real 
quick

Here you go:

replace-all: func [series oldval newval /local sub-ic][
        sub-ic: func [sd][
            forall sd [
                either equal? first sd oldval [
                    poke sd 1 newval
                ][
                    if series? first sd [sub-ic first sd]
                ]
            ]
        ]
        sub-ic series
    ]

Not bad. You use an inner function for the recursion, which should 
allow you to go to greater recursion depth before running out of 
stack space. I'd change the series? to any-block?, and the EITHER 
IF to a CASE, and the FORALL to a WHILE, and add type specs to the 
outer function, and change /local sd to /local sub-ic?, but otherwise 
good stuff.

Sorry, I wrote most of that before you posted your fixed version.

There you BrianH..  You just thought of ways to improve it.  I just 
whipped it up when we were discussing it from another function built 
for a different purpose.

I like your recommendations also.  Maybe I will change the ip-check? 
function I have in TRETBASE which this is based on.

Be sure to change your oldval and newval references to get-words 
for safety.

Not sure I follow you.

Oh so it doesn't evaluate them you mean.

either equal? first sd :oldval [
                    poke sd 1 :newval

Yeah good point

Did i spark your interest for changing the replace function?

If so I suggest you keep the replace function and make this an entirely 
different replace function.  Call it replace-deep if you like.

Then just cut out out the /all from your current replace function 
and leave as is.

The reason is that I believe this will be more tasking on the stats/evals 
then replace is by far.

By the way that recursion method with the function inside the function 
is the only way I found to get round most of those stack errors you 
mentioned.

Have you seen the replace function? We are getting to the point of 
diminishing returns on new features - too much complexity overhead. 
As it is, we are going to have to use APPLY in the R3 version just 
to add another option.

No I haven't really paid much attention to it.  i know there was 
some discussion on the 2.7.6 discussions but i haven't followed R3 
development much at all.

Do source replace - it's a good way to learn some interesting optimization 
techniques.

is it the same in 2.7.6 as it is in 2.7.5?  I'm currently using 2.7.5.

No, it really isn't. The 2.7.6 REPLACE was one of the backports, 
as was EXTRACT.

Extract is in 2.7.5 also which is the one I was using.  Maybe that 
is why we are on different pages on that issue.

I'll check them out later.

I didn't realize that you weren't using 2.7.6. I wrote REPLACE and 
EXTRACT in that release.

oh - lol.