There's a very entrenched use of the term compose in math and functional programming to refer to the idea of function composition. Ren-C has been pushing on the abilities so that you can CHAIN and SPECIALIZE functions. But if anyone were searching on this they would ask "how to compose two functions".
When I was first experimenting with a new operator that was a replacement for REJOIN that had more predictable behavior (and would "dissolve nones"), I called it COMBINE. Something I noticed that was frustrating is that I kept mixing up COMBINE and COMPOSE...typing one when I meant the other.
Today the replacement is DELIMIT and its specializations SPACED and UNSPACED. Which means the COMBINE word is free. It's the same number of letters as COMPOSE and doesn't carry the baggage.
As I'm not proposing any specific definition for the COMPOSE operation at this time, it could be just left as "error: use COMBINE or do COMPOSE: :COMBINE". This could also help alleviate confusion over COMPOSE's historical splicing behavior: COMBINE could get a fresh start with its behavior of only splicing blocks if
((...)) is used.
On a similar note, I have a lot of questions about the MAP! datatype. But one question would be its name. The map term in almost all functional programming scenarios does something like:
>> map :negate [1 2 3] == [-1 -2 -3]
Ren-C can do some fancy tricks similar to these languages, e.g.
>> map (=> 10 +) [1 2 3] == [11 12 13]
It's hard to think of a nicer word for this!
The data structure could have other names... HASH! is a bit misleading (sounds like it's a hash value, as opposed to a HASHTABLE!). DICTIONARY! is a pretty self-explanatory name that's used several places. It's long to type out, but in a language that lets you say dict!: dictionary! it seems that maybe it's something people could abbreviate on their own if they think it's a problem.
I've always felt that the functional programming languages had the most "reusable thought" and vetted libraries. Today's world sees languages like Rust and Elm borrowing heavily from places like Haskell, and I think that's a lot of established prior art to be ignoring. It's hard to imagine coming up with better...so these questions should be taken seriously if one expects to have traction with the thinking people of the world (!)