World: r3wp

R2 is not dead. I am still using it ! It will be very useful for 
some time to come. It will take a long while for R3 to stabilise 
to the point at which R2 is now.

I expected exactly such a reaction, just waited for it to pop up 
:-) I am talking about focus/orientation .... all the potential of 
RT goes to R3. Judge for yourself, if Orca should, and for how long, 
to focus on R2, respectively to add new features, before we know, 
what RT gives us ...

I do love the dramatic statements around here sometimes...

well, it's not like R2 will become utterly 100% useless, is it? There's 
a ton of value in R2 still.

my opinion is, that Orca should stick to compatibility mode right 
now, before it is clear, what R3 offers on its own feature wise (tail 
recursion etc. discussed here), because later, if Orca now goes its 
own way, it may not be easily possible to get on pair with R3 compatibility 
wise ....

also my Rebol/View hasn't stopped working since R3 was announced...

I want Orca being Rebol compatible as much as possible, or it is 
different language then ...

Exactly. I agree with everybody forever.

of course, as I am not able to contribute, just regard my vote as 
not non important ... it is upon those who contribute to Orca ...

Anton :-)

not non = not so ....

Anton, I don't see contradiction between your goals and my goal.

Sounds good, but how about this case: 
	foreach v [1 2 3] [ ]
in rebol currently returns unset!
in orca returns 'v

It can be argued that this is a small useful improvement that doesn't 
interfere with rebol code. I would prefer, however, to change it 
back to the rebol way because there may be times (possibly very rare) 
when some code relies on this behaviour and is broken by the change. 
How do you see this case ?

Reverse it you want.

Ok, that's good. So when you want to add things to Orca, how can 
we manage that ? Compiler switch ?

Yep. There is already a compat flag.

Kaj, and anyone else new to the discussion, I'm trying to get a consensus 
on the future direction of Orca. It is a divergence from Rebol, as 
stated on these pages:
http://trac.geekisp.com/orca/wiki/OrcaProject
http://trac.geekisp.com/orca/wiki/OrcaBehavior

Look at op.c in the src code.

In Ruby it would return 3, which is actually very nice in many cases

But I would like to steer it back to Rebol. Actually, since Orca 
needs a name change, it's probably better to fork and do a big name 
change, probably to something like OpenRebol or ORebol. What do people 
think about that ?

Anton, search from "#ifdef LANG_ORCA
" if you want examples of use.

(Kaj, note the body block is empty.)

Jaime, ok..

Anton, I agree with changing Orca's course to be more compatible 
that it is now. On the other hand, I think it would be fairly silly 
to specifically implement REBOL bugs, especially now that R3 is going 
to fix some of them

Still, in Ruby it would return 3. :-) Which I use a lot

Actually, that's another issue:  Do we make a separate fork for R3, 
(considering it may not stabilise for some time.) ?

That seems like overkill. I say develop Orca along with R3, with 
the same features

It's not like the differences are huge - one of the advantages of 
the high abstraction level

But we don't know what R3 is yet.

We don't know what Orca's going to be, either :-)

I think we're talking details here

Anton, In order to speed coding you could just target cloning.

I think it's wise to fork Orca, to be clear about the name and the 
direction it's going.

And the easiest way for that is add the missing natives and mezz.

Anton why fork. There is nobody else developing it.

Once the all the natives and mezz are completed then we can talk 
about enhancements.

Like Kaj request for returning the last element.

Hmm.. So you think there is lots of work that can still be done before 
the need to fork becomes a strong issue.

Exactly

Pick the low-hanging fruit. There's a lot left here

Ok, so we can pool our resources and leave the arguments til a later 
stage.

Yup

Alright, sounds reasonable.

You see the light!

I had to work through the issues. :)

It's good to know where everyone stands.

I agree with Kaj here ... develop what is missing, then go R3 route 
compatibility wise .... good aproach imo!

so I think we have got general agreement about the course here?

Now just how to make those 3 rumoured complete rebol clones authors 
to release the code to Orca? :-)

Life is funny for months, I encourage people to work on Orca, when 
KarlR and myself decide to quit, we get new fuel. Funny.