World: r3wp

especially in xml u might have a lot of attributes.. makes sense 
to break them into lines, doesn't it?

Ah, ok then.

I am not totally frequent here but I have the sense I haven't seen 
any signal from Carl for a long.. am I wrong or did he really go 
silent?

he went silent, yes.

anyone has any idea why or when he will return?

He's probably working on support projects. The last word was that 
it was Linux related. No word on when he will return. He has asked 
us to post the most important bugs in curecode to fix for A112.

aha ok, at least it's a "controlled disapearance"

It usually is. It does seem disconcerting, but last time it lasted 
longer. The result was unicode support in R3. :-)

I was just afraid he stopped communicating and nobody knows what's 
going on

he does that often.

Not sure this one is controlled. This time we are nearing almost 
6-7 months of silence. Carl simply has a day job,not a supporting 
project imo.

Pekr, that is not correct. Last writing was April 1st, 19 days ago.

Janko - Henrik is not right - Unicode "silence" lasted for 3 months. 
Unicode, Parse - those were controlled disappearances, yes. Not this 
one though.

Henrik - last writing where?

RM Asset private world.

I am still not happy with this:

    not none ; == true


, which means, that NOT handles NONE as a logic value. At the same 
time, it is not a logic value for other logic operators/functions:

    none or none

** Script error: or does not allow none! for its value2 argument


, and am tempted to put it to the CureCode. Am I the only one disliking 
this?

To be more precise: I dislike the incompatibility between logic functions, 
not any specific variant of the behaviour.

I can follow that and agree. But it's probably this way, because 
much code will make more sense? Functions returning none in case 
of no more data or the like. Then you can check against none, and 
if the function return ok, you have not none. Or?

I agree, when I look at AND help it states input types as:

(logic! integer! char! tuple! binary! bitset! typeset! datatype!)


none! should be added there and be considered 0 when scalar bitwise 
ANDind is done.

Hmm, Max, that would not help, in fact, keeping the incompatibility 
anyway.

>> if none [42]
== none

>> if not none [42]
== 42

actually, I assumed false was being used that way... it seems not... 

so I vote to have none! be == to #[false] in how logic ops treat 
none.

Geomol, the return value is because of IF...  'IF returns none when 
the condition isn't successfull

yeah, but imagine a function call in stead of none in my code. A 
function, that returns none when failure (like no more data).

Geomol: yes, there *is* a reason why the NOT function is comfortable 
being argument-compatible with IF. But, then, other logic operators/functions 
should be compatible as well. The functionality like typeset or typeset 
can well be left for the UNION function.

Yeah, I understand now. Makes sense to use NONE with OR etc. Because 
it could be the return of a function, we test with OR.

I can't figure right now, if it will lead to some problems in some 
cases.

OR AND etc, already return errors when you try to compare incompatible 
datatypes.  right now it seems very odd to me that #[none] is not 
comparable to logic values.


none is part of the logic! handling in conditionals and loops... 
IMHO it should be in logic ops and funcs too.

There are many funny things. Also why is there a TRUE? function but 
not a FALSE? function?

FALSE? function is NOT

any [none none]  is the none! aware version of ORing :)

i don't like infix much anyway

onetome... but its not an op   :-)

Yes, FALSE? is NOT, but then why do we have TRUE? There's no need 
for it, right? You can just ask on the operation, you're doing.

Yes, but just recently, a user had to choose between:

    any reduce [expr1 expr2]

or 

    (true? expr1) or (true? expr2)

, which are equivalent for him, but not nice.

if some-func OR other-func [] would be nice to support... though 
I ALWAYS use any/all... its become a habit  :-)

he could not use

    any [expr1 expr2]

, since he wanted EXPR2 evaluated.

Ah, and OR is binary OR, when used on integers, which justify TRUE?. 
:-) Still funny.

I guess, that it is more annoying than funny.

Geomol, TRUE? makes any "truthy" value and acutal #[ true ] value. 
  
which, as Lad just showed, is compatible with logic ops

its the newer name of  FOUND?  ;-)

I also prefer any [ ... ] instead of OR. I almost never us OR. But 
I always use infix operators in math, and I very rarely use ADD, 
SUBTRACT, etc.

Yeah, so TRUE? is kinda ok, but I would expect FALSE? to be there 
too then, to make it complete.

Geomol, in R3 we have: 
>> false? true
** Script error: false? has no value

>> true? true
== true

same here.. for some reason. but i miss the infinite arity of lisp 
for add, max, min

yeah, we should have block versions of the various math ops as standard 
in the language.  
 similar to any/all for conditionals.

something like:
sum [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
min/max-of [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
etc.

42 * [1 2 3 4]

[a b c d]: 42 * [1 2 3 4]

maybe too unreadable. :-)

its the newer name of  FOUND?
 - Max, that is an error. see this:

found? false ; == true
true? false ; == false

TRUE? is the "IF compatibility function"