World: r3wp
[!REBOL3-OLD1]
older newer | first last |
BrianH 23-Jun-2009 [15713] | I added a fairly comprehensive comment, with tests. I had to generate 3 CureCode tickets as a result :( |
Maxim 23-Jun-2009 [15714x2] | what is the replacement for first context [] in R3 I can't remember the function's name |
the why? in R3 is a fabulous idea! | |
BrianH 23-Jun-2009 [15716] | WORDS-OF, but the 'self word is not included. |
Maxim 23-Jun-2009 [15717] | no self ... COOL :-) |
BrianH 23-Jun-2009 [15718] | And the returned words are bound to the object. |
Maxim 23-Jun-2009 [15719x2] | oh that is cool. |
I see unbind is now part of R3 :-D | |
BrianH 23-Jun-2009 [15721] | WORDS-OF works on any-object!, any-function! and map! too, though it's only bound to any-object!. |
Maxim 23-Jun-2009 [15722] | I could see the binding to map being usefull, it might be impossible due to the inner implementation of map |
BrianH 23-Jun-2009 [15723] | I'm trying to backport UNBIND to R2, but it's really tricky. |
Maxim 23-Jun-2009 [15724] | I've tried several times... I usually end up doing: load mold myblock |
BrianH 23-Jun-2009 [15725x2] | You can't bind to a map! because the keys are handled differently, with the keys going away when assigned none. |
You can't bind to something that might go away :) | |
Maxim 23-Jun-2009 [15727] | yep :-) I guess asking for a word in a map which isn't there returns none ? |
BrianH 23-Jun-2009 [15728x2] | Yup :) |
Most of map!'s behavior was my idea. | |
Maxim 23-Jun-2009 [15730x2] | it makes me think of the array type in AREXX ;-) |
are only words supported in map! or are other types usable for the key? | |
BrianH 23-Jun-2009 [15732] | Other types too, but not all other types. |
Maxim 23-Jun-2009 [15733] | so scalars, pairs, tuples, strings, words at least? |
BrianH 23-Jun-2009 [15734] | Yup. |
Maxim 23-Jun-2009 [15735x3] | a trick question... are set and get words enabled? and are they differentiated from lit-words? |
to me an unbound word is a lit-word in the context of the map... | |
I'm not sure what I wrote above makes sense.. hahaha | |
BrianH 23-Jun-2009 [15738x2] | Binaries too, but not block, object or vector types. Word types are converted to word!. |
All types can be used as values though, except #[none] which will make the key disappear. | |
Maxim 23-Jun-2009 [15740x3] | yep this means we can use the map exactly like in AREXX, very usefull for sparse arrays :-) |
if you used the object's pointer in the map internally, we could use objects too, it would actually be very usefull and not that much heavy to implement. | |
like find with blocks is very fast. it only maps the exact same object, not a similar object AFAIK. | |
BrianH 23-Jun-2009 [15743x2] | You can use objects as the values, but the keys need to be hashable :) |
Map keys get hashed when the map gets large enough. No, I don't know how large that is :) | |
Maxim 23-Jun-2009 [15745] | but the object pointers can be hashed? no? |
BrianH 23-Jun-2009 [15746] | Bring it up with Carl :) |
Maxim 24-Jun-2009 [15747] | he'll ask me for an example of usage... now I have to scan my brain for the last 10 years of REBOL usage... and remember when I'd used this... hehe |
BrianH 24-Jun-2009 [15748] | The advantage of map keys is that they don't have to be the SAME? as the key, they can just be EQUAL? and the hashing speeds things up. With objects you either have a reference to it or you don't. If you have a reference, you can extend it with new fields, which can refer to the values you want to associate with the object. If you don't have a reference you need to specify a key within the object that you are searching for, and hashing won't help there, but we're going to add a mezzanine to do that kind of searching. |
Maxim 24-Jun-2009 [15749x2] | the EQUAL? note is very important to mention in the docs... and its important for the difference between them to be very explicitely defined for all types, somewhere. |
the difference between EQUAL? and SAME? | |
BrianH 24-Jun-2009 [15751] | I believe there is a blog conversation about that now :) |
Maxim 24-Jun-2009 [15752] | yep... I just meant... it has to be very precisely/explicitely documented :-) btw, I added other qualitative word examples for equality-likeness-sameness on the post... might give you ideas for a better scalling of the four levels |
Sunanda 24-Jun-2009 [15753] | Just updated my article about my early R3 porting adventures. Highlights of changes: -- shout outs to Ladislav and Steeve -- thanks, guys -- fix of to-pair issue -- aside about the largest prime discoverable prime number in REBOL -- I suggest any discussion on that goes into [Puzzle answers] -- problem with parse --- see ISSUE under rse-ids.r -- Can anyone help diagnose the issue? Thanks! http://www.rebol.org/art-display-article.r?article=j26z |
BrianH 24-Jun-2009 [15754x2] | Some tweaks: - OR~, not ~OR - AND~, OR~ and XOR~ work in R2 as well, and should be used instead of AND, OR and XOR for prefix use. |
Interesting article :) It's great to see how easy porting from R2 to R3 is :) | |
Steeve 24-Jun-2009 [15756x2] | sunanda, in insert-compact, replace: >>prev: pick here -1 by >>prev: pick here 0 |
for RSE-IDS source | |
Sunanda 24-Jun-2009 [15758] | Thanks Steeve -- will try that later. Thanks Brian -- though it's early days yet. I've deliberately picked the nursery-slope scripts. I have others I'll build up to that regularly acted as R2 stress-testers. |
Steeve 24-Jun-2009 [15759] | As Brian pointed, it's not difficult to port to R3 but it's not optimized for R3 and to do so; it will need more rewrite. |
Ladislav 24-Jun-2009 [15760] | Sunanda: Correction! I told you, that it was the largest INTEGER! prime in R3, I did not claim a larger one is not findable |
Pekr 24-Jun-2009 [15761] | back from business trip. So what's the binary conversion status? Is it just a test how it turns out, or are we definitely going that direction? |
Ladislav 24-Jun-2009 [15762] | conversion done, you can download A62 |
older newer | first last |