Deciding on an Alternative Comment Syntax


One thing that helps REBOL be readable and usable even though it combines infix and prefix operations is to make the words of the former be symbol-heavy if not solely symbolic (think + - *) and have the latter be (prefereably correct English) alphabetic-heavy if not solely alphabetic (think head reverse sort copy data).
Even adding arrow-words to the language was welcome as a way to increase the space available for those symbolic operations that make sense to be infix.
Having words (like MOD) be infix is wrong. Even AND and OR are inherently wrong, but they can be put up with, just like ? can be put up with as being prefix. A limited number of special cases is bearable. But there needs to be push back on going against this readability idea in general, and ESPECIALLY if it’s being done just to forward a single-person agenda of allowing // for comments.
I’m not even going to mention that this change is also extremely horrible because it destroys all slashes words, not just //.


It is pleasing to see you have other code in a js-native versus a true function containing Rebol code.
Also writing less JS code is better (almost state: in all cases).
Rebol just is not C code and its comment is thus different. The semicolon is good as is, it finally has got a good place as a comment signal.


I’m the one writing the codebase which mixes JS and Rebol in the same file. And I can tell you that no, it is not a pleasing aspect to have the two styles–and I will not be the only one who feels this way, at such time as I am not the only one writing such code.

Until then I am the sole authority on the matter.


There is nothing “perfectly good” about // being a WORD!. Making / a zero-element PATH! combined with not having / in words solves several major problems in the language. I’m not going to repeat the discussion… again.