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

World: r3wp

[!REBOL3]

Maxim
23-Oct-2010
[5686x2]
I'm about to prepare a package which has a working version of openGL 
in view...
wondering if Its better to wait for A109
Carl
23-Oct-2010
[5688]
I uploaded it for the RMA guys to test out.
Maxim
23-Oct-2010
[5689]
ok, so its already done... cool.
Carl
23-Oct-2010
[5690]
The A109 did not focus on host-kit, but on other things... so not 
sure it works. I can give you a copy to try if you want.
Maxim
23-Oct-2010
[5691x2]
yeah, it would be nice, I'll try to update the Custom Gob Rendering 
API to it.
btw have fun at amiwest tomorrow... wish I where there  :-)
Carl
23-Oct-2010
[5693]
www.rebol.com/r3/downloads/r3-host-kit-a109.zip
Maxim
23-Oct-2010
[5694]
thx !
Carl
23-Oct-2010
[5695x3]
so... give it a try, but no promises on this one, not tested
(and perhaps some of the files not quite right either... so, it's 
not official.)
Thanks on AmiWest... my truck is full of really old Amiga stuff to 
take over. Cleaned the basement.
Maxim
23-Oct-2010
[5698]
no problem on testing, I'll be diffing it against my modified A107.
Carl
23-Oct-2010
[5699]
Well... hopefully it works. CU later, must go get some sleep.
Maxim
23-Oct-2010
[5700x2]
I can't wait to share the 3d enabled version or R3.... btw, I just 
named my 3d model format...    .R3D    :-)
ciao!
Carl
23-Oct-2010
[5702]
I'm looking forward to it, as I'm sure many others are!
Maxim
23-Oct-2010
[5703]
full-screen animation at 10% cpu  ;-)
Andreas
23-Oct-2010
[5704x3]
Carl, a minor glitch in the A109 hostkit, which prevents it from 
compiling with AGG: in reb-lib.h the #ifdef __cplusplus definition 
of RXIEXT is borked.
Should be
#define RXIEXT extern "C" __declspec(dllexport)
instead of
#define extern "C" RXIEXT __declspec(dllexport)
(reb-lib.h, line 68).
Other than that, the hostkit works fine (and hostkit-built binarries 
pass the same number of tests as the RT binaries).
Sunanda
25-Oct-2010
[5707x2]
Is this a bug or an expected/justifiable result:
  1x.00000000000000000000000000000000000001
 == 1x9.999999e-39
I thint it may be a specific case of this -- unexpected by me, anyway:
    (second 1x.1) = 0.1
    == false
BrianH
25-Oct-2010
[5709]
Ah yes, floating point not being able to represent 0.1 exactly. But 
with the default digits that should work.
Ladislav
26-Oct-2010
[5710]
The (second 1x.1) <> 0.1 result is caused by:


1) the fact, that binary floating point cannot exactly represent 
1 / 10

2) the fact, that 64-bit IEEE754 (REBOL decimal!) is more accurate 
than 32-bit IEEE754 (REBOL pair coordinate)

Thus, the result is both justifiable, as well as expected.
Sunanda
26-Oct-2010
[5711]
Thanks, Ladislav.

There are several anomalies, which at least could be noted in the 
documentation under the pair! data type.


Another [anomaly]/[undocumented change from R2 behaviour] is when 
a pair overflows:

....R2 throws an error, or replacee the large number with 0 (itself 
an odd behaviour).

....R3 can generate +/-infinity. As far as I know this is the only 
way in R3 to get a -/-INF; and the value is not usably serialisable:
    xx: as-pair -1e44 1e44
    == -1.#INFx1.#INF
    type? first xx
    == decimal!
    load mold first xx
    ** Syntax error: invalid "integer" -- "-1.#INF"
Ladislav
26-Oct-2010
[5712x2]
Thanks, Ladislav.
There are several anomalies, which at least could 
be noted in the documentation under the pair! data type.

Another 
[anomaly]/[undocumented change from R2 behaviour] is when a pair 
overflows:


....or replacee the large number with 0" - which expression do you 
mean?
The infinity may be a problem, but, it looks like a low priority 
issue to me.
Sunanda
26-Oct-2010
[5714]
I mean sometimes one, sometimes the other:
R2:
>> as-pair 1 1e308
== 1x0
as-pair 1 1e309
** Math Error: Math or number overflow
Ladislav
26-Oct-2010
[5715x4]
Thanks, did not notice that
aha, but this behaviour does not have anything in common with pairs, 
in fact
The 1e309 value causes the overflow when loaded
Otherwise, the R2 pairs never overflow, instead they "wrap around"
Sunanda
26-Oct-2010
[5719x2]
Thanks for the analysis. I kinda know the reason, but the documentation 
should make the limits clear ro those who do not know (or have not 
thought through the implcations of) the internal representations.
INFs are a low priority.....But they are also an interesting REBOL 
phenomena...Unserialisable values that do not always equal other 
same-sized INFs :)

    xx: array/initial 100 as-pair 1e44  -1e44
    length? unique xx

    == 100   ;; 100 separate infinities ... Cantor would be proud!

    (first xx/1) = (first xx/1)
    == true
    (first xx/1) = (first xx/2)

    == true           ;; or perhaps its just UNIQUE having a bad day

    xx/1 = xx/2     ;; or perhaps not
    == false
Oldes
26-Oct-2010
[5721]
To have infinity values would be good, but the current behaviour 
is a bug of course. The positive/negative infinity must be loadable 
as a normal number, not just in pairs.
Sunanda
26-Oct-2010
[5722]
Thanks Oldes. I've curecoded the inconsistencies I've noticed:
   http://www.curecode.org/rebol3/ticket.rsp?id=1717
Ladislav
26-Oct-2010
[5723]
Sunanda, you wrote, that INF support was good, not mentioning why. 
Can you explain, why do you want to have it?
Sunanda
26-Oct-2010
[5724]
INFs (and NANs) are part of the standards REBOL is coded to. It's 
good to match as much of the standard as possible.
Ladislav
26-Oct-2010
[5725x4]
Hmm, that reason is not relevant, as far as I can tell. Example: 
IEEE754 standards define comparisons, but REBOL uses a different 
approach.
So, REBOL is not "coded to standards", rather it uses the available 
features of the hardware.
In my opinion, the exclusion of infinities from the decimal! datatype 
was intended, exactly because REBOL was not "coded to standards". 
(I may be wrong, not being Carl, though)
In general, the usage of infinities in programming languages is not 
required by any standards, as far as I can tell. In my opinion, it 
is only "supported".
Sunanda
26-Oct-2010
[5729]
REBOL clearly uses parts of the standard -- raising errors! rather 
than returning NANs or INFs is generally a useful approach for most 
programmers.

But, given it (now) partially implements INFs, some clarity about 
what parts (and why) would be useful too.
Ladislav
26-Oct-2010
[5730]
Well, I feel it may be the other way around - when not wanting to 
write much code, it is easier to have INFs than not. The removal 
of INFs requires to take care of all the exceptions.
Cyphre
26-Oct-2010
[5731]
Pekr, Andreas, ChristianE and anyon who is interested...I published 
win console R3core version that should show correctly ut8 characters. 
IF you can try to dsiplay your native language chars just download 
it from here: http://cyphre.mysteria.cz/tests/r3-core-a107-console.zip
and let me know if it works for you.

Note that this version doesn't work well with STDIN/OUT redirection 
yet. I didn't want to waste time on this part yet until the normal 
console STDIN/OUT works well.
ChristianE
26-Oct-2010
[5732]
Cyphre, this looks like a nice acomplishment. Those aren't exactly 
letters from my native language's alphabet, but your console nicely 
prints  

>> print to string! #{e282acc2aec3a4c59fc691cea3ceaecfae}


when startet in a cmd.exe console reusing that as well as opening 
it's own console if double clicked from desktop.
Andreas
26-Oct-2010
[5733x3]
Cyphre, does it allow you to input "special" characters as well?
Yes, seems it does.
And it launches nicely from both a pre-existing console as well as 
from the explorer.