@greggirwin Yes, I mean
can as suggestion. Other people (you included) know Red's internals so you may know/guess pross and cons of this.
find the features that add significant benefit
Sometimes small and insignificant features change a language a lot. For example:
any-series!lets you fake syntax:
e: func [a] [a], this is possible:
@pbaille @9214 There is no Red?!
You can treat this "mental burden" from other language like some things to compare, learn from (we have talked about it so it's more talk to pbaile than you 9214). Well, we should let him/her do whatever floats his/her boat.
>> f: func [ F DESCRIPTION: F is a function! value. >> f *** Script Error: f is missing its x argument *** Where: f *** Stack: f][ ] == func [ ][ ] >> f 1 420 >> clear body-of :f f 1 >> append body-of :f [print 420] f 1 420 >> clear spec-of :f ==  >> ? f USAGE:
object!with unset values? I wanted to do something like this:
context [a: b: c: UNSET-VALUE]. I can do this but I have to do it a casu ad casum:
c: make object! [a: b: c: 1] ; >> unset in c 'a ; >> unset in c 'b ; >> unset in c 'c c ; == make object! [ ; a: unset ; b: unset ; c: unset ; ]
noneis good enough to indicate the absence of expected values.
unsetis more of an internal beast whose usage you should avoid as much as possible.
set/anyis better though, because
unsetdoesn't distinguish between object's fields and other words.
>> o1: object [a: 1 b: object [c: 1]] == make object! [ a: 1 b: make object! [ c: 1 ] ] >> o2: o1 == make object! [ a: 1 b: make object! [ c: 1 ] ] >> o1/b/c: 3 == 3 >> o2/b/c == 3
/deepdocstring as in R2).