World: r3wp

Ladislav, for comparison I added the tests from the blog to #1543, 
#1544 and #1549. Take a look and tell s what you think. English is 
overrated - clearly, we should be expressing our arguments in REBOL 
:)

tell s -> tell us

Right,Brian, in REBOL it usually is less ambiguous, that is why the 
Bindology article contains that much Rebol code

I added your philosophical point tests to the example code of the 
#1549 ticket, and the practical tests to a comment. Please check 
both.

And test them against the build linked above, to see whether they 
match. There doesn't seem to be a SELFLESS? function yet, so the 
downsides of the proposal haven't been resolved yet by the posted 
build.

In the posted build, functions are fixed, but closures and loops 
aren't yet.

If my last tests are more understandable, then I am able to simplify 
the #1549 wording by removing older text, etc. keeping and explaining 
only the newer tests

does that make sense?

BTW, I wanted to edit the TO-BINARY function description in R3 documentation 
to explain the "network bit order", but did not succeed; while I 
edited some parts of the documentation, now I am unable to log in, 
and have no idea why (posted a private MSG to Carl in R3 chat, but 
he may have missed the message?)

Sure. Btw, your philosophical tests pass now, at the expense of other 
bugs continuing, including the return of #447. The practical tests 
show the errors in question. Basically, #447, #1528 (for closures), 
#1529 and #1552 are still problematic.

Is there somewhere I can get A98?

We are all asking that

Updated the practical tests to explicitly test for the missing fixes 
(except #1552). Go to R3 chat for the link to the build.

OK

there is no A98, just A97 core, the link is in R3 Chat ...

http://www.rebol.com/r3/downloads/r3c-a97.exe

I was trying to avoid posting that link in a web-public forum.

yes, but why?

Don't know :)

OK, so I solved it then :-)

(From chat #7216) Some tests pass, others fail. It's a good start.

- The tests in the example code of bug#1549 pass (Ladislav's philosophicals)

- The practical tests don't. In particular, bug#447, bug#1528 (for 
closures), bug#1529 and bug#1552 are still problematic.

- We need a SELFLESS? function (or whatever it should be called) 
to resolve the main downside of the #1549 approach, and we need it 
for the a98 release.

Here are the practical tests that need to pass:

; Objects
ob: object []
print same? ob do bind [self] ob
print same? ob do in ob [self]

; Functions
ob: object [f: func [/x] [do bind/copy [self] 'x]]
print same? ob ob/f
; Can't use the context after the function returns.
; This is not a side effect of Ladislav's proposal.

; Functions with a 'self parameter (#1528)
ob: object [f: func [/self] [do bind/copy [self] 'self]]
print not same? ob ob/f

; Closures (#447)
ob: do closure [x] [bind? 'x] 1
print 1 = ob/x
print not same? ob do bind [self] ob
print not same? ob do in ob [self]

; Closures with a 'self parameter (#1528)
ob: do attempt [closure [self] [bind? 'self]] 1
print 1 = attempt [ob/self]
print not same? ob do bind [self] ob
print not same? ob do in ob [self]

; Closures shouldn't bind 'self unless it is a parameter (#447)
print same? self do closure [x] [self] 1
print not same? self do attempt [closure [self] [self]] 1

; Loops (#1529)
ob: repeat x 1 [bind? 'x]
print 1 = ob/x
print not same? ob do bind [self] ob
print not same? ob do in ob [self]

; Loops with a 'self variable (#1529)
ob: repeat self 1 [bind? 'self]
print 1 = attempt [ob/self]
print not same? ob do bind [self] ob
print not same? ob do in ob [self]

; Loops shouldn't bind 'self unless it's a variable (#1529)
print same? self repeat x 1 [self]
print not same? self repeat self 1 [self]


See also #1552: There needs to be a way to distinguish selfless contexts 
from selfish contexts at runtime (a SELFLESS? function), and selfless 
contexts need to MOLD into DOable syntax (perhaps a different datatype, 
or a flag).

New test build, all of Ladislav's and my tests pass. Success, and 
agreement, yay!

selfless?: func [context [word! object!]] [
	make object! [
		myself: 'self
		return same? myself first bind [self] context
	]
]

>> selfless? make object! []
== false

>> repeat i 1 [selfless? 'i]
== true

>> upgrade
Fetching upgrade check ...

** syntax error: script is missing a REBOL header: http://www.rebol.com/r3/upgrade.r

>> f: func [/local x] [selfless? 'x]
>> f
== true

>> f: closure [/local x] [selfless? 'x]
>> f
== true

>> selfless? 'rebol
== false

if we want to have the function faster, this version should suffice:

make object! [
	set 'selfless? func [context [word! object!]] [
		return same? 'self first bind [self] context
	]
]

optimized:

make object! [
	set 'selfless? func [context [word! object!]] [
		'self =? first bind [self] context
	]
]

as it looks, this optimization was "too much", since the function 
modifies itself, so either we need to always create a new object, 
like above, or use BIND/COPY at least:

make object! [
	set 'selfless? func [context [word! object!]] [
		'self =? first bind/copy [self] context
	]
]

Thanks, I'll modify the ticket accordingly :)

yes, I found out, that you actually wrote the function in CureCode; 
is the 'self argument already accetable in functions?

Yes. All of both our tests pass now in the new build.

And your version is more secure than mine, which used DO rather than 
FIRST.

if the 'self argument is acceptable, then I probably do not have 
the same version as you do

I use /local self. I was talking about your
    'self =? first bind/copy [self] context
vs. my
    self =? do bind/copy [self] context
Mine has a code-injection risk.

So I switched that line for yours :)

Strangely enough, the code injection risk doesn't come from the DO 
vs. FIRST, it comes from the self vs. 'self. We can't use :self with 
=? in R3 because self is a frame! that evaluates to an object!, not 
an object! itself.

Another way to resolve the risk would be to change the line to this:
    :self =? do bind/copy [:self] context

Or to put a [none!] typespec after /local self.

according to Time-block my version is a little bit faster, but that 
should not matter

>> f: func [/local self] []
** Script error: duplicate variable specified: self
** Where: make func
** Near: make function! copy/deep reduce [spec body]

No, that absolutely matters, because this is a mezzanine that won't 
be turned into a native unless it gets used a *lot*. Carl is convinced 
that the function isn't critical, so we have to make due with a mezzanine, 
if he puts it in at all. And I will insist.

(still not working here, and I downloaded again to make sure

It only works in the test builds. And that was one of my tests, so 
if it doesn't pass I will be surprised.

Carl is convinced that the function isn't criticall
 He's not the only one :)

yes, I used r3c-a97.exe as downloaded just now

Hey, it is the only way to get me to accept #1549. Use the second 
test build (it came out while you were asleep last night).

http://www.rebol.com/r3/downloads/r3c2-a97.exe

aha, ok, a different name...