Pending issues
This page documents a number of pending issues in the R3 definition, design, or implementation.
We must precisely define how math for percent works. It makes sense that:
5% + 10% = 15%
But does:
5% + 10 = 10.5 or 15?
And, the same is true for:
10 + 5%
Set-words in function specs will get a new meaning to allow special function modes. It has been used in ROUTINE! specs before, but how this works for functions is still being defined (and it is non-essential to beta 1 release.)
Examples:
f1: func [a [integer!] return: [integer!]] f2: func [a b options: [protect]] f3: func [a b trace: [enter exit]] f4: func [a b trace: [step]] f5: func [a b catch: [all]]
Should a function have access to its input evaluation stream. For example, if F1 is a function, do we allow:
F1 10 "test"
where F1 can access the block from the point of [10].
It may be possible to redefine the :word function spec meaning (which does almost the same thing as 'word) to allow this.
Should we allow functions to MOLD back to FUNC, DOES, HAS, etc.? It is not a major change to do so.
Should MOLD on a bitset return a string or block similar to normal bitset specs? More user friendly. Not, some cases may remain as binary, to avoid odd characters in strings.