World: r3wp

It's the next thing on my list to rewrite PREBOL to be compatible 
with R3's module system. The syntax should be a compatible superset, 
but the internals will be a lot different.

  - hmm, reinventing the wheel? (my INCLUDE is already available from 
  rebol.org library and it has the properties you listed)

Oh that's it

You should not be to much alarmed, the "It's the next thing on my 
list" is his favorite motto ;-)

lol

And if INCLUDE gets added to R3 as the opposite of EXCLUDE,

 - funny. The opposite of EXCLUDE already exists. The only "but" is, 
 that it is not called 'include.

...and it exists in R2 as well as in R3

Graham: "Neither of these systems are in general use" - wrong, actually. 
Everybody using Rebol preprocessor is compatible with Include, and 
the "generality of use" of INCLUDE is higher, than you guess.

Ah, sorry, I forgot. I did not put it to Rebol.org, since there already 
was a simplified alternative from Carl, so INCLUDE for R2 as well 
as INCLUDE for R3 are only at http://www.fm.tul.cz/~ladislav/rebol/

(but you can find some doc on rebol.org)

when we are at it, the main doc is at http://www.rebol.net/wiki/INCLUDE_documentation

I'm conflicted. I can see the logic of Brian's INCLUDE (though still 
wondering if it should be a set operation), but I use Ladislav's 
INCLUDE heavily. For me, the important thing is that we all, Carl 
included, keep communicating and work to leverage community efforts.

Yes, I have an old include system too, using the INCLUDE function 
name. It's hard to stop using it, unfortunately. I am quite ok to 
have a native INCLUDE added and to mean the opposite of EXCLUDE, 
however.

Ladislav, what is the R3 opposite of EXCLUDE ?
UNION ?
ALTER ?

What Steeve wants (conditional APPEND), does not have the same meaning 
as UNION.

Gregg, I don't use the set operations very often (but I still want 
them there), but I do conditional APPENDs quite often, and I miss 
a native function for it definitely.

(Puzzle spoiler!) The opposite of EXCLUDE is UNION.

Neither ALTER, nor the newly proposed function are opposites of EXCLUDE.

I have alternative names for EXCLUDE/INCLUDE ..... EXPLODE/IMPLODE 
:-)

Anton - what do you mean by conditional append? If not found? find 
blk value [append blk value] ?

EXPLODE? Sounds as a good suggestion to me, if that name should be 
accepted ;-)

:-)

Pekr, yes.

Sorry, I meant a modifying INCLUDE, as being the opposite of a modifying 
EXCLUDE. We had a long discussion about this.

UNION is non-modifying. EXCLUDE is currently non-modifying, but misnamed 
because of that (shouldn't be a verb).

Ladislav, I have no problem in principle with adapting some of the 
code in your include stuff to make a PREBOL superset with inherent 
support for R3's modules. However, if your preprocessor doesn't support 
collecting modules with R3's module syntax, then it's of no direct 
use to me for R3 code. And the great thing about a PREBOL superset 
is that #include is *not* a function, it's a directive.

That's right.

I have had frequent need for modifying INCLUDE and EXCLUDE, but not 
as much need for the non-modifying stuff. To each their own.

The non-modifying version of EXCLUDE should be called EXCLUDING, 
if we want the part of speech right :)

Hmm, EXCLUDING's not a bad way to avoid clashing meanings for EXCLUDE.

A problem with INCLUDE is that it sounds like INSERT, but the functionality 
is APPEND (which is INSERT TAIL, ok). So what if we also want conditional 
INSERT ? I think we don't want it as often as APPEND, but it could 
be more flexible, allowing different positions to insert.

Is it really so bad to do conditional code with conditional code? 
We have IF, EITHER and UNTIL for a reason. They are not awkward.

It's not so bad, but it would be nice to have, if we could just come 
up with some good function names...

It's a pity if the reason we don't add convenient functions like 
this is just because we haven't found good names for them.

we have already weird naming conventions, e.g. in case of 'ajoin. 
So what about cinsert, cappend? ('"c" like conditional, or "a", to 
be compatible with 'ajoin)

Btw, "it's on my list" is more of a desperate cry for help nowadays. 
It's more of a "it's on my list to get done, because it's needed". 
Actually doing it myself is the last resort; getting someone else 
to do it is the preferred method. I'm more than happy to provide 
advice, but it's hard for me to budget time to program this myself.

I was thinking of "cinsert" and "cappend" too. But note, "adjoin" 
is a normal existing english word, from Anglo-French "ajoindre".

That last resort seems to happen a lot though.

Fair enough, Brian. You're handling many areas already.

Sorry, this isn't the ~Vent group :)

Just looking in the thesaurus.
Possible other names for INCLUDE / EXCLUDE:
	ENTAIL / OMIT   <- ENTAIL good for conditional append.
	ADMIT / OMIT   <-  ADMIT good for conditional insert.
Nice and short, eh?

I like explode/implode ... :-)

Looking over your %include.r docs again Ladislav, the only problems 
it has for R3 development (aside from function naming) is that it 
doesn't support collecting modules. Since all R3 development directly 
or indirectly uses R3's modules, it's only missing the main feature 
needed. But at least the rest is done, so adding module collection 
could be done by anyone who understands the semantic model of R3's 
modules well enough.

That's not a long list of people at this point, but at least it's 
not just one person :)

BrianH: so no free time on your part last days?

The non-modifying version of EXCLUDE should be called EXCLUDING
 - for me this is as good as "EXPLODE", just a mess

Last 3 or 4 months. I've been averaging about 1 day a week in front 
of a computer. I spend more time in my car.

'EXCLUDE is corresponding well to 'SUBTRACT of 'DIVIDE, which are 
non-modifying either

Then you need a laptom in your car .... :-)

laptop

I see EXCLUDE as more useful than UNION, actually, when comparing 
the usefulness of set operations