I vote *yes* for the change.
As to Romano's question; given:
next [1 2 3]
;== [2 3]
then it makes sense to get this result:
reverse next [1 2 3]
;== [3 2]
Often, reverse is used with a variable:
blk: [1 2 3]
reverse blk
;== [3 2 1]
In such a case, the index of the block *is preserved*,
instead of "lost" (by going always to the tail).
So, also:
blk: next [1 2 3]
reverse blk
;== [3 2] ; <--- index preserved
head blk
;== [1 3 2]
Anton.
> I am not against the reverse change also if it breaks orthogonality.
>
> I want only to remember the /part refinement
> reverse/part [1 2 3]
>
> and ask: where is the head here?
> reverse next [1 2 3]
>
> --
> Ciao
> Romano Paolo Tenca
--
To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to rebol-request
at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
