The Grand Leading-Slash "Safety, or Burden?" Question

[hostilefork]

@hostilefork

Another part of the proposal was that in order to get tighter control on what was a function or not, you would be required to assign functions using a leading-slash kind of SET-WORD!.

>> foo: func [a b] [return a + b]
** Error: FOO: can't be used to assign antiform FRAME!, use /FOO:

>> /foo: func [a b] [return a + b]
== ~#[frame! "foo" [a b]]]~  ; anti

It hasn't fully settled with me after working with it for some time.

If it can't settle with me, it will certainly put others off, and lose a major aspect of the clean feeling of the language.

It's nice to have a shorthand for foo: ensure action! ... and so I don't think the feature should be thrown out. But when you're writing foo: func [...] [...] you already know it's an action, and being forced to say you do makes the code look junky.