World: r3wp
[!REBOL3]
older newer | first last |
Graham 2-Aug-2010 [4235] | lfunct = Lfunc |
Andreas 2-Aug-2010 [4236x3] | 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* | |
Graham 2-Aug-2010 [4239] | depends on whether you want to stress the similarities or differences |
Maxim 2-Aug-2010 [4240] | 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. |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4241] | 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. |
Maxim 2-Aug-2010 [4242] | I agree, func is the basis of just about every script out there. |
Andreas 2-Aug-2010 [4243] | But never forget bug#666. |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4244x3] | 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." | |
Andreas 2-Aug-2010 [4247] | Thanks, but we are discussing hypothetically here. |
Maxim 2-Aug-2010 [4248x2] | 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 | |
Andreas 2-Aug-2010 [4250] | (And FUNCT/WITH would warrant a discussion on it's own.) |
Ladislav 2-Aug-2010 [4251] | I posted #1640 just today related to it |
Andreas 2-Aug-2010 [4252] | 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. |
Maxim 2-Aug-2010 [4253] | why not call it GOSUB ;-) |
Graham 2-Aug-2010 [4254] | Of course nothing to stop you from creating new names ... F: :func LF: :funct |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4255x2] | 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. | |
Ladislav 2-Aug-2010 [4257] | OK, nevermind, it is a detail anyway |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4258] | 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. |
Graham 2-Aug-2010 [4259] | which blog was it? |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4260] | Having trouble finding it. The function is more than 2 years old, and first came about during the first closed GUI development project. |
Graham 2-Aug-2010 [4261] | http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/r3blog.r?view=0144 |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4262] | Note that I was in favor of FUNX rather than FUNCT :) |
Maxim 2-Aug-2010 [4263] | well, the pretty clear concensus was that funct was the least popular name by far :-) |
Graham 2-Aug-2010 [4264x2] | I too was in favour of funx |
So we have Gregg to blame! | |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4266] | 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. |
Graham 2-Aug-2010 [4267] | what typo quality? because x and c are adjacent on the keyboard? |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4268x2] | Then again, maybe others aren't having the same trouble with typos that I have been having lately (had to correct 6 in this sentence). |
Graham, yes, that. | |
Graham 2-Aug-2010 [4270] | If you're a touch typist, x and c use different fingers ... so it doesn't matter if they're adjaxent or not |
Maxim 2-Aug-2010 [4271] | I was about to say that |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4272] | I am physically incapable of touch typing. |
Graham 2-Aug-2010 [4273] | we are going for the rest of the world! |
Maxim 2-Aug-2010 [4274] | funq funk |
Andreas 2-Aug-2010 [4275] | mm, funx would be nice :) |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4276] | Maxim, that is why I liked "funx" :) |
Andreas 2-Aug-2010 [4277] | but it has such a pluralist sound to it :) |
Graham 2-Aug-2010 [4278] | x implies a break ... from past behaviours |
Maxim 2-Aug-2010 [4279] | I feel that when reading code, funx sticks out very well from the rest, and it doesn't have that strange esoteric feel which funct has. |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4280] | Func extreme! |
Gregg 2-Aug-2010 [4281] | I am only partially to blame. I think, even then, I expressed concern about the beauty of the word funct. That said, I don't think funx, funq, or lfunc are any better. I believe a number of people were there and really tried to find a good name. |
Graham 2-Aug-2010 [4282x2] | before we change the name, we had better get RT's opinion |
RT = Rebol Tutorial :) | |
BrianH 2-Aug-2010 [4284] | It really is getting a bit late to bring this up now. FUNCT is already in R2 as well, and is in most R3 code that has been written so far. |
older newer | first last |