World: r3wp

words can evalute but lit words don't.

no, lit words evaluate to words

I know it does which is why I believe that is inconsistent.

I currently get this:

type? 'test
==word!

I think it would be more consistent to get this:

type? 'test
==lit-word!

Consider this link by Brett:

http://www.codeconscious.com/rebol/articles/rebol-concepts.html

It says the following:

'age

This textual form is recognised in rebol as the lit-word! datatype.

See that isn't entirely true - only half true.  Consider:

>> lit-word? 'age
== false

But this is purpose of lit-word! With your behaviour,
>> reduce ['a] ; would return
== ['a]

But that makes sense to me.

That is why I say that it is only half true to say that it evaluates 
to a lit-word.

It does sometimes but not all the time.

No, it evaluates to word!, not lit-word!

Always

To me that is the inconsistency.

Paul, with your behaviour, how would you write this code?:

>> a: 3
== 3
>> reduce ['a a]
== [a 3]

to me it should be ['a 3]

But I know that  breaks how REBOL works.

but then 'a would be very similar to just string "a" in behaviour... 
don't lit words exist exactly for the behaviour that they have?

And REBOL does see 'test as a lit-word.  A trace shows this:

>> string? 'test
Trace:  string? (word)
Trace:  'test (lit-word)
Result: false (logic)
== false

Yes Janko, it would be intended in that behavior which again is why 
it would break how REBOL works.

Does this help?  X contains the code you see and type, the lit-word! 
typed in.  It gets reduced to its word value..
>> X: [type? 'one]
== [type? 'one]
>> type? X/2
== lit-word!
>> do X
== word!

I'm not arguing about how lit-words are used.  I'm arguing about 
how lit-word? detects lit-word.

The rest is understood that it should work they way it should be 
cause of the manner of words in REBOL.  But the function of lit-word? 
is what to me seems inconsistent.

I understand all of that IzKata.  I have been using REBOL since 1998 
now.

That part has remained pretty much the same.

My argument lies specifically with the lit-word? function.

What is wrong in having lit-word? return True in this case:

lit-word? 'test
==true

but argument to lit-word? in your case is not lit word , it can't 
return true vithout magic 

>> 'test
== test (this is what lit-word? recieves in)

Yes it is Janko, a TRACE shows that my argument  is a lit-word.

If you were correct Janko then how would Trace know to classify my 
argument as a lit-word?

how do you make this trace (I never used it, and also don't understand 
what exactly it shows)

Trace shows what the rebol interpreter first finds, not what a datatype 
evaluates to:
>> type? 'test
Trace:  type? (word)
Trace:  'test (lit-word)
Result: (datatype)
== word!

Janko:
>> trace on
Result: (unset)
>> 'test
Trace:  'test (lit-word)
== test

Yes Izkata, it finds that 'test is a lit-word.

And the interpreter converts it to a word! before passing it to 'lit-word?

so lit-word? never sees a lit-word!

Yes, I understand that.  But that is not what it was given.

Again, I'm saying what is wrong with having the lit-word? function 
return true for a lit-word value?

Obviously the interpreter can see that it is a lit-word value even 
BEFORE it calls it a word! value.

But it does:
>> X: ['Test]   
== ['Test]
>> lit-word? X/1
== true

Yes, I know Izkata in that case but that  is not consistent with 
this one:

lit-word? 'test
==false

Nobody is answering my question though - what is wrong with having 
lit-word? return true in the case above?

Because it never sees an actual lit-word! - all the other (datatype)? 
functions do.

never actually sees*

Trace shows that it does see it as a lit-word

>> 'test
Trace:  'test (lit-word)
== test

Trace shows that the interpreter - not the lit-word? function - sees 
a lit-word before it gets evaluated

not after

Exactly!!!  So why don't we modify lit-word? function so that it 
can say true when it sees it?

See if I asked someone to tell me what type this is:

'test


They would most likely respond a lit-word.  So shouldn't the lit-word? 
function say the same?  I say it should.

Rebol, the interpreter, sees a lit-word!.  Trace shows this.  It 
*then* evaluates it to a word!, *then* passes it to lit-word?, and 
lit-word? never sees the original lit-word!