World: r3wp

pekr, did i understand that u were using rebol 4 astronomy? could 
show me/us some of ur worx? a collegue of mine - whom i really want 
to b converted from php to rebol - is an amateur astronomist and 
such a stuff can give him the final pulse to start learning&using 
rebol

jfyi i use forth regulary for writing pic microcontrolers applications 
(small ones usually)

tomorrow, or I will write to you privately, too tired now, time to 
sleep :-)

sure. thanks in advance!

Actually...
opcodes for integer math are :
	-add, mul, div, min, max, abs, ...
opcodes for decimal math are :
	-addd, muld, divd, mind, maxd, absd, ...

Would you prefer integer opcodes to be :
	-addi, muli, divi, mini, maxi, absi, ...
or not ?

(quick answer required!)

yes.

i typed it that way the first few times.

Speaking as someone who generates as well as wwrites rebcode, I would 
say yes. This frees up the non-typed opcodes to be rewritten with 
their typed equivalents by a type inferencer.

It also makes their typed nature explicit, and establishes the convention 
of <opcode>i for integer-specific opcodes, which will come in handy 
later when we add more (like picki/pokei).

Maybe it makes it sense to have generic math too, then we could add, 
sub etc too. Not sure, but if interaction with rebol is closer and 
we deal with rebol-created blocks?

would keep that option open.

Generic math is slower....

Yes, but a typecheck and a branch and a conversin even more.

I would prefer the explicit interger opcodes

(no chance some of you change a bit his color : you look the same 
all three)

Volker, the typecheck can be done by the programmer, or a type inferencer, 
either way statically. When rebcode gets a JIT those typechecks get 
put right back to implement generic math, because the real machine 
won't have it.

if i want a generic sum, people feed [ 1 2.5 3 ], it would be faster 
in rebcode, so makes sense. with hand-typecheck it would be slower. 
I guess its to rare to worry about, but i would keep the option.

but main reason is, its easier to remember, set seti setd add addi 
addd would be first thoughts.

When you hand-typecheck, you usually do it at programming time, not 
runtime, so it's not so bad.

(I just read the names :)

i write support for rebol, and so it should be easy to pass data.

Didec: on linux we cannot change colors

Ah, didn't know that. Pooor guy ;-)

it worked, see dotgroup.

I get an error report requester to send feedback to safeworlds

ahhh but it did change

(I'm just lazy)

We managed to give you a different color than us. :)

but then ...  "Multiple Errors, Altme must quit now"    <blink>

If change is done to add the "i" on add and others, it will also 
be the case on comparison operators.
eqi, gti, ...

I was hoping so.

Did you see that idea in Rebol Enhancements about picki and pokei 
for bytewise access to integers?

I get generic add by doing this:
    to-dec a
    to-dec b
    addd a b

You can skip one or both conversions if you can trace the type flow 
and be sure of the data types of the arguments.

agreed, thtat is sufficient.

Sorry, to-dec a a ...

Your opinion is require.


Some opcodes exist in double due to specific integer or decimal value 
handling.

What would be your preference on opcode naming ?

Choice are :

1) INTEGER add mul div min eq gt gte ... / DECIMAL addd muld divd 
mind eqd gtd gted ...

2) INTEGER addi muli divi mini eqi gti gtei ... / DECIMAL addd muld 
divd mind eqd gtd gted ...

3) INTEGER add.i mul.i div.i min.i eq.i gt.i gte.i ... / DECIMAL 
add.d mul.d div.d min.d eq.d gt.d gte.d ...

(Today rebcode is 1)

It concern math, logic and comparison opcode.

be brief. use the first one like now

I prefer the second, although the third has merits.

The second is brief and consistent. The first is just brief, half 
the time, and confusing.

3 is not rebol. add/i add/d if you really want that. the little extra 
letter works best for me.

as in 2)

The third makes the typing distinct from the opcode, and that could 
be an advantage when future opcodes are added later.

2

For instance, if you had set.i mean set integer, seti.i could mean 
set integer indirectly.

if we go that complex, i go for extra field or pathes. for now rebcode 
is confusing enough, then at least the keywordsshould be easy.

3) come from asm68k that looks like that.

And rebcode, as a byte-code, is near ASM (even if more powerfull, 
ie: block!)

Paths are much bigger to store, meaning memory and lookup overhead. 
They are blocks you know, with different syntax.

dot looks like a space and spaces are veryimportant in rebol-layout. 
i would not use that.

A period looks like a space?