Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

FUNCT equivalent for closure!s #2001

Closed
rebolbot opened this issue Mar 21, 2013 · 8 comments
Closed

FUNCT equivalent for closure!s #2001

rebolbot opened this issue Mar 21, 2013 · 8 comments

Comments

@rebolbot
Copy link
Collaborator

Submitted by: cyphre2

Would be nice to have equivalent mezzanine to FUNCT but for making closure!s as well.
It could be either just a /closure refinement for FUNCT or completely new mezz. What do you think?

CC - Data [ Version: r3 master Type: Wish Platform: All Category: Mezzanine Reproduce: Always Fixed-in:none ]

@rebolbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Submitted by: Ladislav

Since the need was urgent, we decided (for the purpose of R3GUI) to use FUNCT/CLOSURE. (It is not at many places at present)

@rebolbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Submitted by: Ladislav

Pull request created.

@rebolbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Submitted by: fork

I suggest that going with the spirit of CC#1973, two pairs be made:

CLOSURE and FUNCTION

CLOS and FUNC

Like "func", the made-up word "clos" could indicate a more fundamental building block of the nicer-named variations, which do not give the appearance of "everything in Rebol is global by default".

@rebolbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Submitted by: BrianH

As simple as the /closure option is to add, I agree with Fork here. We should go with #1973 on this. And noone is going to port the Common Lisp Object System to Rebol, so we won't have a naming conflict.

@rebolbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Submitted by: Ladislav

Well, I do not intend to discuss the CLOS and CLOSURE naming issues here.

In my opinion, renaming may be controversial and subject to Carl's decision (CLOSURE naming change would most probably create more compatibility issues than FUNCTION naming change). So, please, resolve that as a separate ticket/issue allowing:

* Carl to decide whether to accept it
* Cyphre and me to work on R3GUI now

@rebolbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Submitted by: BrianH

Agreed that the naming issue should be a separate ticket (#2002), though in this case it would be an opposing ticket to this one. Compatibility issues won't be a problem - see #2002 for details.

@rebolbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Submitted by: BrianH

Added a pull request for #1973 and #2002, Ladislav. Cyphre and you can use it in R3GUI instead of this one.

@rebolbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Submitted by: BrianH

#1973 and #2002 implemented instead of this one.

# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant