A place to discuss the use and development of Rebol and its open source derivatives such as the Rebol3 fork Ren-C, and Red.
For consistency, should it be called Ren/C or Ren-C ??
NB. Both are used on Readme - https://github.com/metaeducation/ren-c
Are you asking about the naming of this forum or about the fork name, i.e is it Ren/C or Ren-C?
WRT the forum, I think Rebol is fine (unless Brian wants to make that an official name). I do think that, the question of branding the fork as the official Rebol, or not, should be settled sooner rather than later. It’s just confusing for the community otherwise.
My reply was partly to just test discourse!
But the serious side of my “question” was just about keeping nomenclature consistent everywhere (here and on other sites).
At the moment we do use both Ren/C & Ren-C names. Which should the community stick to? Uptil now I’ve always used Ren/C (and this is also found on ABOUT and header on Github ReadMe).
As far as I understand it is REN/C but the slash causes path to change on github so REN-C was chosen as an alternative.
Some people are very strict and say Rebol is a trademark of RT. R3 was open sourced and is also know as Rebol. Since R2 knows no active development it is like sleeping beauty.
My simple opinion is this
R3 is open sourced for the community to bring to bloom. REN/C now does exactly this. Effectively as the ONLY fork being developed it is the de facto standard for R3 at this moment. From the moment R2 (core) parity is reached and the rebol.org domain is transferred over to the very community, for me that is the point where the working name REN/C can be surely called Rebol (3).
Or something very close to that…
I’ve always used ren-c … I don’t see a need to change to using a slash unless Brian wants to have Ren/c++ or whatever.
We do have other branches such as saphir, and Arronix Engineering might yet develop their own fork so I think we should keep it as a branch for the moment. And it’s politically more palatable.
Should the name of the forum refer to Rebol or Ren-C, though? I would like to reduce the ambiguity around what exactly this fork represents where the repo one line description is “Library for embedding a Rebol interpreter into C codebases”.
I think we consider all forks of Rebol to be Rebol for the moment. Red is not a fork but a divergent clone as are World, Boron etc. So we could make it Rebol* as I did for the chat but some people don’t like that.
Yeah, the * looks funny to me as well, but I agree with all forks being Rebol (for now).