NONE complement to ANY and ALL

[hostilefork]

@hostilefork

So I am certain the term NONE will not be used for any antiform or non-antiform state.

It's getting a little tiresome of finding things I thought were finalized and deciding they are not.

But I didn't come this far to not do things right.

In any case, I've taken NONE for empty SPLICE!:

>> ~[]~
== \~[]~\  ; antiform (splice!) "none"

>> spread []
== \~[]~\  ; antiform (splice!) "none"

>> none
== \~[]~\  ; antiform (splice!) "none"

@hostilefork

I always thought NONE was the wrong part of speech for a state

Something that swayed me is that NONE sounds like it's counting things, and a SPLICE! antiform is countable...

Having it start with N and be 4-letters makes it seem perhaps uncomfortably close to NULL. But the idea that it's a countable analogue to null makes that sort of cool.

"NONE is a collection, so it exists as a thing, it is truthy."

"Oh, it's a collection? How many elements are in the collection?"

"There are none."

New Name For NONE-OF?

Rather than delete the logical NONE operation, I shifted it out of the way as NONE-OF for now:

@hostilefork

none-of [a, b, c] then [print "None of the things were true, using THEN"]

Remember that THEN and ELSE are deferred infix... they run one function on their left. Not two. So if you were to use it with NOT ANY you'd need a group:

(not any [a, b, c]) then [print "Without the GROUP! THEN reacts to ANY [...]"]`

That infix issue shows why it's not completely superfluous.

Although at one point I said that this was a potential benefit for PATH! as a function composer:

not/any [a, b, c] then [print "If NOT/ANY cascaded the functions"]

I have--however--challenged if this is the best use of slash vs. a more dialected approach. Jury is still out.

If the slash did just compose the functions, then that would kill the argument for NONE-OF.