Seems this never hit the list. I'll try again (even though most of this has been said by others already):
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:33:15 +0100 "Hallvard Ystad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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: Write here: -- To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to rebol-request at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
