It will not break, since head head "123" is identical to head "123"
i.e. if 'reverse were to do 'head all by itself, performing an extra 'head on the series won't change anything. I haven't seen _any_ examples of 'reverse being used _without_ 'head (situations where scrips might actually break), as Carl pointed out in his post. Then there is the current inconsistency in 'reverse: tuples! and pairs! (since they are not series!) will not be "empty" after being reversed (see http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/ml-display-thread.r?m=rmlHGYB). And then there are lists! : >> reverse to-list [1 2 3] == make list! [1] >> head reverse to-list [1 2 3] == make list! [3 2 1] >> index? reverse [1 2 3] ; block == 4 >> index? reverse to-list [1 2 3] ; list == 3 An odd difference, if you ask me. Maybe this could be done more logical too, if 'reverse's behaviour were to change? HY On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:29:04 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Carl: > >> I'm not sure if anyone has been annoyed by REVERSE >>returning >> the tail position. I know I have. Everywhere I see >>REVERSE used >> like this: ... head reverse foo. > >Annoying? Yes.. > >But used? Yes -- quite commonly. > >I've scanned a pile of code and found it on several >occasions. > >Typically something like: > >if user-display-option = "earliest first" [ > data: head reverse data > ] >foreach item data [ .... ] > >Sadly, all that code would break. > >How about a related word? > > invert: func [item] [head reverse item] > >Sunanda >-- >To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to >rebol-request >at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject. > Write here: -- To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to rebol-request at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
