r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[!REBOL3-OLD1]

BrianH
14-May-2009
[14235]
Mostly C, though AGG is written in C++.
Pekr
14-May-2009
[14236x2]
Max - I think it is C, although AGG is C++
BrianH: what is FIRST+? What is the difference to pick port 1 or 
just first port?
BrianH
14-May-2009
[14238x2]
FIRST+ takes a word that refers to a series and it advances the word 
to the next position while returning the first value.
It's a speed/simplicity thing.
Pekr
14-May-2009
[14240x2]
Something like: str: next str?
ah, ok, should have read all your post :-)
Maxim
14-May-2009
[14242]
Many new funcs play with the supplied series which is great!
BrianH
14-May-2009
[14243]
Here's the R2-Forward version:

first+: funco [
	{Return FIRST of series, and increment the series index.}
	[catch]

 'word [word! paren!] "Word must be a series."  ; paren! added for 
 R2
][

 ; Workaround for R3 change in lit-word! parameters with paren! arguments
	if paren? :word [set/any 'word do :word] 
	throw-on-error [also pick get word 1 set word next get word]
]
Pekr
14-May-2009
[14244]
what is funco? I read its help, but don't understand. So normal function 
creation in R3 creates copy of body, whereas funco shares it?
Steeve
14-May-2009
[14245]
funco remains me pulco citron (pulco citrus) a beverage
Pekr
14-May-2009
[14246]
there starts to be too many function related functions: function, 
func, funct, funco ....
BrianH
14-May-2009
[14247]
Right. FUNCO is basically like R2's FUNC - only sa to use under certain 
circumstances.
Steeve
14-May-2009
[14248]
Pekr, you have the sources of func and funco in R3
BrianH
14-May-2009
[14249x2]
But without the throw-on-error stuff.. Just use it for functions 
with correct syntax.
funco: make function! [
	"Defines a function, but does not copy spec or body."

 spec [block!] "Help string (opt) followed by arg words (and opt type 
 and string)"
	body [block!] "The body block of the function"

][ ; For functions known to have no syntax errors or recursive issues.
	make function! spec body
]
Pekr
14-May-2009
[14251]
just weird naming which makes no sense. REBOL always tried to name 
things full-name, not some weird abbreviations ... this is not the 
case with function related functions ...
BrianH
14-May-2009
[14252]
That's the R2 version.
Pekr
14-May-2009
[14253]
would it be much slower to have just one with refinements?
Steeve
14-May-2009
[14254]
surely
BrianH
14-May-2009
[14255x3]
It's short for func-original. It's the function used to define many 
mezzanine functions in R3. Fast, no error checking.
Pekr, the answer to your question is yes, it would be *much* slower 
to have one with refinements.
That's why the only function creation function with a refinement 
is FUNCT - since it does so much work anyways that the refinement 
overhead is much lower in comparison to the rest of the code.
Pekr
14-May-2009
[14258]
Then we need new format supported in native code - having named sections, 
which would be just a jump point for refinements: body: [copy [this 
is copy code] nocopy [this is nocopy code]] :-)
BrianH
14-May-2009
[14259x2]
We have that: EITHER.
The problem is that what you suggest isn't any faster than EITHER 
or PICK.
Pekr
14-May-2009
[14261]
... or switch or case ....
BrianH
14-May-2009
[14262]
Yup :)
Sunanda
15-May-2009
[14263]
R3 alpha 54 released...... Two days after A53, and 32 curecode issues 
addressed.
That's fast work!

http://www.rebol.net/wiki/R3_Releases#View.exe_2.100.54_14-May-2009
PeterWood
15-May-2009
[14264]
Not in the Mac ghetto  :-(:

>> upgrade
Checking for updates..
.

R3 current version: 2.100.51.2.5
 
It was released on: 6-May-2009/0:42:42 



Your version is current.
Pekr
15-May-2009
[14265x2]
OK - no problem to ping Carl about it, no? I think he just did not 
generate it yet ...
Is this our Meijeru? :-) http://users.telenet.be/rwmeijer/
Henrik
15-May-2009
[14267]
same name as in chat
Pekr
15-May-2009
[14268]
yes, although no mention of REBOL on his programming subsite - http://users.telenet.be/rwmeijer/proglang/


btw - I found out he was announcing complete DOM implementation for 
REBOL? Has anyone actually seen anything like that? 
http://www.mail-archive.com/[rebol-bounce-:-rebol-:-com]/msg03548.html
Graham
15-May-2009
[14269]
I got a copy but it was not useful for me.
Brock
15-May-2009
[14270]
I don't think it is.  Didn't he live in the States?  The link provided 
indicates he is living in Belgium.
Maxim
15-May-2009
[14271]
the guy above is living in belgium.
BrianH
15-May-2009
[14272x3]
He is slightly sloppy with his english, in a way that made me think 
it is not his first language.
Everyone who is interested in the typeset debate, look here: http://curecode.org/rebol3/ticket.rsp?id=820
The question is whether binary! should be part of the any-string! 
typeset in R3. Since the Unicode conversion, binaries are arguably 
*not* strings anymore. Even if they support the same operations, 
all of the other string types contain characters, while the binary! 
type contains unsigned 1-byte integers (which characters are not 
in R3). What do you think?
Pekr
15-May-2009
[14275]
Couldn't the same be said about the image?
BrianH
15-May-2009
[14276]
Image is not in any-string! either. The binary! type would remain 
in series!.
Maxim
15-May-2009
[14277]
continuing discussion in I'm new group...


brian: no R3 chat account yet... its basically that I'm keeping my 
energy.  I really would love to participate more in R3 but since 
most of what I do is commercial (REBOL), time invested in R3 is severely 
lost in the short to medium term.


but I think its now progressed enough that I really should participate 
more.  


I think I have a lot of insight to bring to the table since I'm one 
of those few developpers who has been using REBOL commercially for 
just about ever, I've been using a module clone for the last 7-8 
years,  built 4 complete view engines (even ported glayout to python 
;-),  implemented some of the largest apps (code wise), and have 
several dozen REBOL APIs under my belt.
BrianH
15-May-2009
[14278x3]
I am reviewing the module system now (well, not right now since I 
am working). We have tried to balance simplicity and security, but 
I think the way we did that balance is to have two extremes which 
you can choose between with one refinement. I'm checking whether 
the simplicity extreme is too insecure, and whether the security 
extreme is too difficult to use.
The reason I am checking this now is because it is time to backport 
the module system to R2. The code is pretty easy (and mostly written) 
- the design issues are not. Since you've written a module system, 
your input may be valuable.
There will be changes to the R2 version of the module system due 
to the global context, but even that can be balanced.
Maxim
15-May-2009
[14281x3]
this can be a big discussion... want to do so privately?
cause all I've read of the R3 engine, slim already handles a part 
from actual enforcing of the privacy.
it acutally does a lot more.
BrianH
15-May-2009
[14284]
Yeah, let's not dump the details on everyone until we have some common 
ground :)