Binding Without $ Signs... What's The Operator?

Development Naming
1

The modern world of binding means this is the true and correct behavior:

>> x: 10 y: 20

>> eval collect [keep 'x keep '+ keep 'y]
** PANIC: no binding for x

If you want that to run, you can either bind the container so that it has a context to trickle down to the unbound elements:

>> eval $ collect [keep 'x keep '+ keep 'y]
== 30

Or you can leave the container unbound and put bindings on the individual elements.

>> eval collect [keep $ 'x, keep $ '+, keep $ 'y]
== 30

If you're dealing with a bindable non-quoted thing, then you can use a $ that is "tied" directly onto the element... a "binding quote":

>> eval collect [keep $x, keep $+, keep $y]
== 30

BUT Should We Have An English WORD! For "Bind Here"?

I have previously remarked that if $ didn't exist, this operation is so critical that it would deserve the name BIND as an arity-1 intrinsic:

>> eval bind collect [keep 'x keep '+ keep 'y]
== 30

>> eval collect [keep bind 'x, keep bind '+, keep bind 'y]
== 30

But that feels like it squanders the word, when a BIND dialect can do so much more.

Or Is It Not Squandering, but Tactical Marketing?

Perhaps having an arity-1 BIND meaning "bind here" as a complement to an arity-1 UNBIND can help make this more palatable in the English-like world?

:man_shrugging:

Other Words For Arity-2 BINDing?

arity-2 BIND could be WITH as in @hiiamboris's proposal, and BIND could be arity-1 for this "clean" look, but I dunno.

Alternate Modality Of Arity-2 BIND?

I've suggested maybe a parameter to the arity-2 bind for the functionality:

>> make-bound: func [x] [return bind <here> '(x)]

But it would be a bit cluttered and couldn't be an intrinsic... so the benefits kind of drop off. I don't think it would make anyone who didn't like $ happy enough.

The Great THE Operator!
Should sequences permit non-head SIGILs?
Displaying Prime Factors
3

I have deemed it to be the case, that arity-1 BIND...as a complement to arity-1 UNBIND...is the right choice.

This means we're now in the tricky situation of what to call the other binding operations.

WITH isn't terrible.

USING is kind of okay.

obj: make object! [field: 10]

eval using obj [field + 20]

Like WITH, I think there's sort of an "arity-2-ness" to using. It's an incomplete thought without another word. You wouldn't end a sentence with "Using X".

(You'd write "Using your right hand, turn the crank." Not "Using your right hand. (period).")

Because I don't know yet, I'm calling arity-1 bind BIND1 for now, and I'm not going to do the rename until I have good names picked.