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

World: r3wp

[!REBOL3-OLD1]

Henrik
15-Jan-2009
[9617]
pekr, no, r2 console version is low priority. Carl wants to do R3 
GUI version next.
Pekr
15-Jan-2009
[9618]
good to know GUI is next. It will help to further improve GUI ...
Graham
15-Jan-2009
[9619]
html version should be next ...
Henrik
15-Jan-2009
[9620]
Graham, that would delay the GUI.
Graham
15-Jan-2009
[9621]
ok, concurrent then :)
Henrik
15-Jan-2009
[9622x2]
The only way to truly speed up development would be to clone Carl.
So Carl1 could focus on rebdev, Carl2 could focus on tasks and Carl3 
could focus on modules. Carl4 would work on the GUI and ReBrowser.
Graham
15-Jan-2009
[9624x2]
just give us more docs and we can do this
that's really the point of collaboration
Henrik
15-Jan-2009
[9626]
But can we provide stuff of high enough quality for him? That's the 
issue.
kib2
15-Jan-2009
[9627]
Pekr: I wasn't aware of the GUI stuff.
Graham
15-Jan-2009
[9628]
if that's an issue .. then he should close off all collaboration.
Henrik
15-Jan-2009
[9629]
It is _the_ issue. Carl trusts no one unless you can work at his 
level. And that is also why the quality of R3 alpha feels like everyone 
elses release versions. :-)
PeterWood
15-Jan-2009
[9630]
Where should I report DevBase bugs?
Henrik
15-Jan-2009
[9631]
I suppose the best place for now is CureCode.
Steeve
15-Jan-2009
[9632]
When we use to block! on input data, most of the time we don't want 
 duplicate them if data are already a block.
(we use copy instead if we really want that behavior)

i think to block!, to string! , form and some other native conversions 
should never duplicate the data if they already have the correct 
format.

This, should limit the memory overhead in many scripts or mezzanines, 
and save us from coding many useless tests.
[unknown: 5]
15-Jan-2009
[9633]
I agree Steeve.
Steeve
15-Jan-2009
[9634]
it appears to me that most of mezzanines who have to do such conversions 
could be 1) shorter and faster 2) with less memory overhead
[unknown: 5]
15-Jan-2009
[9635]
I agree with you and it seems to me that it would be a wise fix.
Pekr
15-Jan-2009
[9636]
to block! copies data? if so - why? :-)
Steeve
15-Jan-2009
[9637x2]
actually it copy them, don't know why...
>> z: [1]
== [1]
>> same? Z to block! z
== false
Pekr
15-Jan-2009
[9639]
this would go against REBOL principles - copy only if needed. There 
was some change in regards to functions in relation to bind or something 
like that, but ...
[unknown: 5]
15-Jan-2009
[9640]
Maybe this question has more to do with when to use to-block verses 
modifying it.
Steeve
15-Jan-2009
[9641]
as Pekr stated, if we want a copy, we use copy
sqlab
15-Jan-2009
[9642]
If I want my data to be the same, I do not apply an operation on 
them.)
Steeve
15-Jan-2009
[9643x3]
You don't see the point...
to block! is vastely used to permit polymorphic input in functions.
even like form...
Henrik
15-Jan-2009
[9646]
Graham, it seems the file commands are saved for elsewhere in rebdev, 
so he won't use them here.
BrianH
15-Jan-2009
[9647x3]
PeterWood, report DevBase bugs in the !DevBase group here. There 
is no CureCode area for DevBase. Keep in mind:

- The current DevBase will be replaced soon. RebDev is a code name 
for the next DevBase.

- DevBase may be more updated than you think. Ask more in the !DevBase 
group.
Steeve, to-block is used in a lot of code to *copy* and/or convert 
to blocks. We depend on the copying behavior a lot.
Particularly in the mezzanines :)
[unknown: 5]
15-Jan-2009
[9650]
I think he is saying that if the value is already a block why copy 
it.
BrianH
15-Jan-2009
[9651]
I would love a separate function called AS-BLOCK that does convert 
if necessary else pass on. Maybe an AS native with a ton of wrappers, 
just like TO. That would solve the problem without losing the existing 
behavior.
[unknown: 5]
15-Jan-2009
[9652x2]
now your talking....
BrianH, keep Steeve in mind if you get openings for more programmers 
in developement of R3.
BrianH
15-Jan-2009
[9654]
I love the idea, just not changing TO :)
[unknown: 5]
15-Jan-2009
[9655]
He has some pretty good experience.
BrianH
15-Jan-2009
[9656x2]
That is clear :)
That is the whole point to the releases. We are getting ready for 
more developers :)
[unknown: 5]
15-Jan-2009
[9658]
Cool
BrianH
15-Jan-2009
[9659]
Temporary UI weirdness aside, it is really cool to have a chat client 
for REBOL right there *in* REBOL :)
[unknown: 5]
15-Jan-2009
[9660]
I find out when it gets released.
Steeve
15-Jan-2009
[9661x2]
ok Brian push the 'as development as far as you can, it will improve 
many mezzanines
*pull is better
Graham
15-Jan-2009
[9663x2]
Brian, what's R3's memory footprint cf R2 ?
for similar applications?
Maxim
15-Jan-2009
[9665x2]
to-string does the same oas to-block.  even I have come to depend 
on the copying aspects of it, and I can assume that many others do 
to.
one question I have... does the object type also copy every series 
included like in R2 ?  that, IMHO one of the biggest regressions 
in rebol's history.   reversing the copy is impossible to do perfectly 
(scanning the new object, and attempting to link back the old series). 
plus it slows down rebol in a few ways.