I remember arguing for this change when reverse was first introduced. ;-) You provided an example at the time of wanting to keep it consistent with insert, unfortunately I can't find that example now.
I use reverse a bit for manipulating face pane blocks, or for a reverse lookup list. Never found an occassion where I didn't want the head returned. I'm sure I'll finally find one the moment it is changed. :-) The current need to use head with reverse is not intuitive for most people the first time they encounter it. So I vote for the change. -- Allen On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:01:21 -0800, Carl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > It's my fault. I defined REVERSE like this for the same reason I defined > INSERT and other series functions to do the same: to not lose "information" > (in other words to preserve the ending location). But, that feature is rarely, > if ever, used (in REVERSE that is). > > I'm inclined to change it to return the starting location, but I thought it > might > be good to discuss this openly. Will such a change break existing code? > It could, if anyone uses the result of REVERSE. But, that would surprise me. > I've never used it in "millions" of lines of code. (That's like dog years.) > > It's a small thing, but I don't like new users to get annoyed with stuff > like this. > > "Say the word, and it will be done by sundown today." > > -Carl > > -- > To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to rebol-request > at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject. > > -- To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to rebol-request at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
