World: r3wp

Some counterexamples where we messed this up:

- "functions" have side effects so they aren't really functions, 
they are procedures with return values.

- "closures" aren't really closures, though they are closer to that 
than REBOL "functions" are.
- "contexts" aren't contextual
The list goes on.

cause x actually has not ever been set.

so if I get you right,  in REBOL: 

contexts are actually closures, 
functs are actually functions 
and funcs are actually procedures

;-)

We actually had a function called FUNCTOR for a while, and it really 
created functors. And it went unused for more than a year, so we 
dropped it. It turned out that what FUNCT does is really useful, 
even though the concept is unique to REBOL. Apparently functors aren't.

Brian, agreed, but e.g. "functions" are somewhat "standard" (C, ...)

FUNCTs and FUNCs are both procedure builders. Neither create functions. 
It's a common naming mistake in imperative languages.

Including C and the Pascal it was based on.

but really, I would rather we use the term proc instead of funct

Then it isn't like FUNC, and people are more likely to misunderstand 
the difference. It really is a unique concept, certainly nothing 
like the proc concept in other languages that have that term.

I think proc would make things even worse. Nothing would indicate 
that FUNC and PROC are basically the same, except for a minor (but 
important difference). And choosing which does which is absolutely 
arbitrary.

agree with Andreas

I actually preferred Ladislav's old LFUNC naming; but FUNCT is fine 
as well. There simply is no easy way to name this.

I'd probably stop using func most of the time, and I can't see myself 
typing funct  20 times a day.


everytime I write it, I feel like I'm writing a less savory femal 
genital word in a strange dialect of german ;-)

Yes. I think the only real choice we have is what behaviour we want 
to label with FUNC, which is probably the most prominent name among 
our options.

Maxim, nothing in REBOL corresponds to a closure, though the closure! 
type is closer than other function types, and many other languages 
call something similar to that a closure too. We don't have contexts 
(though "dialects" are close). Neither FUNC nor FUNCT build real 
functions, but they both build what other imperative languages incorrectly 
call functions, so people won't get confused.

The value of funct over lfunct is that it sorts in proximity alphabetically

yes, that is why I think it is quite reasonable

lfunct = Lfunc

Which is also its most prominent shortcoming, as readers pattern-match 
better at the beginning of a word then at the end.

So LFUNC is visually more different to FUNC then FUNCT is.

than*

depends on whether you want to stress the similarities or differences

I also prefer LFUNC the L actually has meaning in that word.  the 
mind unwraps the L to "Local" automatically.   while FUNCT really 
is obscure everytime you read it.

I have two reasons why I like keeping FUNC the way it is:

- FUNC is the simplest function-creating function, so giving it the 
shortest name seems appropriate.

- As a rule, we prefer to not rename old functions and then give 
their old names to new functions. That would be user-hostile.

I agree, func is the basis of just about every script out there.

But never forget bug#666.

FUNCT doesn't just gather locals ("lfunc"), it also optionally binds 
the function body to an object ("friend-func" to adapt the C++ term.

Andreas, I also don't forget bug#667.

The rule in bug#667: "We are trying to keep our breaks in compatibility 
of legacy functions limited to semantic changes, removed or changed 
options and such, and only when necessary (see #666). Some legacy 
functions have been removed altogether. None have been renamed yet 
- except as in the example above, with the old name still there."

Thanks, but we are discussing hypothetically here.

yes, but its a refinement, and even then, it still acts "locally" 
within that object (I'm assuming its using function locals on words 
in didn't bind to).

in = it

(And FUNCT/WITH would warrant a discussion on it's own.)

I posted #1640 just today related to it

But given the hypothetical blank slate, I'd still agree with Brian's 
first argument, namely the using FUNC as name for the simplest common 
case is sensible.

why not call it GOSUB   ;-)

Of course nothing to stop you from creating new names ...

F: :func
LF: :funct

Yeah, Ladislav, I just answered that ticket.

See bug#934 for the behavior that you rediscovered in FUNCT/with. 
It is in the function docs strings that show up in its help.

OK, nevermind, it is a detail anyway

Yeah. We really gave that and every other detail of the behavior 
of FUNCT a great deal of thought. If only we had given that much 
thought to the name: FUNCT is sort of the default name - Carl made 
a blog about it, and then the discussion never went anywhere, so 
we stuck with the initial name because it was better than the other 
suggestions.

which blog was it?

Having trouble finding it. The function is more than 2 years old, 
and first came about during the first closed GUI development project.

http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/r3blog.r?view=0144

Note that I was in favor of FUNX rather than FUNCT :)

well, the pretty clear concensus was that funct was the least popular 
name by far   :-)

I too was in favour of funx

So we have Gregg to blame!

I find the typo quality of FUNX to be a downside now. It is harder 
to type FUNCT by accident when trying to type FUNC.

what typo quality?  because x and c are adjacent on the keyboard?