World: r4wp

I think it could be a good start. However, Ladislav usualli works 
on REBOL wiki.

I'm not waiting for anything in particular WRT R3. I am very anxious 
to have time to start using it more, and I am grateful to the Saphirion 
team for taking the lead on it and doing so much work. Because they 
have, I decided that what time I can make right now I will put behind 
Red, as I think I can provide more value there, and to give Doc some 
support for all his work too.

I'm also going to post more thoughts and questions about funcs, like 
I did with SPLIT-PATH, because now is the time to make any changes, 
IMO.

Ren is a new distraction now too. :-) But I think it will be good 
for all of us.

Please, may you add some examples in the following pages?
http://rebol.informe.com/wiki/view/Rebol_3-set-face
http://rebol.informe.com/wiki/view/Rebol_3-get-face

How do you like this "Implementation artefact":

f: make function! reduce [[x /local x-v y-v] body: [
	x-v: either error? try [get/any 'x] [
		"x does not have a value!"
	] [
		rejoin ["x: " mold/all :x]
	]
	y-v: either error? try [get/any 'y] [
		"y does not have a value"
	] [
		rejoin ["y: " mold/all :y]
	]
	print [x-v y-v]
]]

g: make function! reduce [[y /local x-v y-v] body]

>> f 1
x: 1 y: 1

(specailly Andreas should have a look)

Just for comparison, these results are from R2:

f: make function! [x /local x-v y-v] body: [
	x-v: either error? try [get 'x] [
		"x does not have a value"
	] [
		rejoin ["x: " mold/all :x]
	]
	y-v: either error? try [get 'y] [
		"y does not have a value"
	] [
		rejoin ["y: " mold/all :y]
	]
	print [x-v y-v]
	unless value? 'y [g 2]
]

g: make function! [y /local x-v y-v] body

>> f 1
x: 1 y does not have a value
x does not have a value y: 2

http://issue.cc/r3/2025

Very good catch, Ladislav. A rather nasty bug.

(remedy is not hard, already found out how to correct it)

Point the "frame" to the full function value instead of just the 
function's body.

- not exactly

(that would be quite incomfortable)

Interested in any alternative fixes, but I see no discomfort for 
the above.

Well, there is some discomfort. REB_FUNCTION values are not garbage 
collected.

However, fortunately, the ARGS series is unique to function (since 
it is created specifically for the function), so it can be used instead 
of the body.

That's indeed rather annoying. Seems the GC leaves much to be desired.

(even if two functions have the same SPEC and BODY, they always have 
distinct ARGS)

Ok. That's better (even though it is a somewhat ugly hack).

Well, but the fact that REB_FUNCTIONs don't need GC is not ugly IMO.

One negation too much.

(Meaning: sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to 
say.)

You mean you dislike it?

Integers, decimals, REB_FUNCTIONS, whatnot... don't need GC.

Only series and GOBs need GC

Quite fortunate that you know already know enough of the GC to not 
mistakenly walk down the wrong road.

I didn't yet check how REB_FUNCTIONs are created, but why should 
they _not_ be GC'd?

Are they pooled or managed using a custom allocator?

Exactly for the same reason why integers do not need GC. They are 
not allocated, so they don't need deallocation

Ah, so they can only be contained within a series.

Ok.

(Or a gob, maybe.)

Yes, the reason why GOBs needed GC was that they did not fit within 
128 bits.

(GOB is 512 bits)

So there's a "gob reference" value type?

Yes

Ah, I see. A "gob value" is just a pointer to the real gob structure.

REBGOB (the part needing GC) is 512 bits, while Reb_Gob (fits within 
128 bits and points to a REBGOB)

REBGBO! :)

Thanks for clarifying.

Yes, sorry, it is just struct Reb_Gob called REBGBO.

BTW, REBGBO looks quite ugly to me

(I mean just the name)

Maybe REBGBI (in analogy to REBSRI) would be better?

Is the "index" field of REBGBO presently used?

yes

you can write:

next gob

So, actually, the "full GOB" is 544 bits, not just 512

(when summing REBGOB and REBGBO while subtracting the pointer.