World: r3wp

I should just inline 'probe

yep.. usually a better alternative... and put a prin "test3: " on 
the previous line.

(previous line is for scripts, obviously makes no sense for the command 
line hehehe)

I generally only use ? and ?? for words when I want to know the type 
as well, and because of that very issue I started using this:
probe: func [D][
    print join join type? D "!  " mold :D
    D
]

It's in my primary include file.  Helps with 'none versus none!, 
etc...

the only thing is the loss of the variable name, but using lit-word 
argument breaks the entire reason for using this, so... eh.  It'd 
be very nice to have some sort of in-between

I have redefine my probe so it uses mold/all instead... it also only 
dumps the first 500 chars when I try to probe something which is 
way to big (like a nested set of faces)

what's the word to remove one series from another?

someop [ 1 1 2 3 4 ] [ 1 ] 
== [ 1 2 3 4 ]

exclude

oh .. it's alter

but it will add them if they're not there.

that's okay ... I need to remove all elements where there's only 
one of them

all patients who have had more than one office visit over the past 
year with a diagnosis of hypertension :)

oh ... you want  'UNIQUE

why do you need the second argument?

unique [ 1 1 2 3 4 ]
== [ 1 2 3 4 ]

no .. I want alter

set1: [ 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 ] <= need to remove 4
set2: unique copy set1
alter set1 set2

no need for copy... all "set" functions copy.

can never remember which copy and which inline

the above returns...  [1 2 3 4] on my test.

sorry  [1 2 3 2 3 4]

well, that's no good is it!

so you want to remove singletons from a block?

yes .. so why isn't alter doing that?

actually I want to remove one of each

ok so given:    [ 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 4 ] 
what is desired result?

[ 1 2 3 ]

maybe I do want exclude and then unqiue

no .. exclude operates on sets

if you know [4] then that will work

blk:  [ 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 4 ]
unique exclude blk [4]

I don't know

ok working on a solution (I like these quick riddles)

I'm going to have to use a loop :(

I don't know why subtract does not work on blocks

foreach el set2 [ remove find set1 el ]

I tried yours and it didn't seem to work... but this definitely does:

c: 0
blk:  [ 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 4 ]

unique remove-each i copy blk [ c: c + 1 not find (at blk c + 1) 
i]

I can't see why mine won't work ...

since set2 is a unique version of set1, it will always find and always 
remove

I've long considered + and - on blocks to be useful... but, would 
others agree?

YES!

go for it!

though I don't mind if we use 'subtract and 'add

They're the same.

there is also a really usefull missing "set" function


duplicates:   returns items in a series present multiple times in 
that series.


without this function, right now there are many missing combinations.

to get singletons:

exclude blk duplicates block

next you'll be asking for the ability to create combinations and 
permutations!

well, AFAIK duplicates is probably the single most frequently re-requested 
series function I've seen in the years.

so return those in a block where there exists more than one?

yep.

which is essentially what I was trying to do above

what instances have you needed this?