World: r3wp

I know, I today can write things like


 either find [#[datatype! block!] #[datatype! paren!]] type? value 
 [ ...


but I don't do that, because it has too much syntax for my taste, 
and therefore isn't very readable.

Maybe the question should be put the other way around: Are there 
cases (in real scripts), where it would be a problem, if datatypes 
equals words?

FYI - datatypes were never words, but they were examples of specific 
datatypes in R1

refinement! is member of the any-word! typeset together with word!, 
set-word!, get-word! and lit-word!. My thoughts above lead to asking 
if also none! and logic! should be part of any-word! with datatype! 
too? Examples from R2:

>> /ref = 'ref
== true
>> find [/ref]Ê'ref
== none		; this is strange to me

Maybe all the next should succeed?

>> find [true] true
== none
>> find [none] none
== none
>> find [integer!] integer!
== none

It's funny, that the following succeed, but for another reason:

>> find [word!] word!
== [word!]

none! and logic! are simply not word types, so it makes no sense 
to have them in the any-word! typeset. none/true/false being words 
conveniently pre-bound to values of the corresponding datatypes does 
not change that.

Note that we also have a literal syntax for none! and logic! values 
now, which makes all your finds succeed even without reducing:

>> find [#[true]] true
== [true]

Etc.

Integers are not decimals, but they're both numbers, and we can check 
like:

>> 1 = 1.0
== true

Refinement are not words, but they're both any-words.


Why not let datatypes (and none and logic) be any-words just the 
same? If the benefit from doing so is big, then it could be a good 
idea.

w> /refinement = 'refinement
== true

The question is, if the following would lead to a disaster?

w> integer! = 'integer!
== true

In any case, I wouldn't conflate that question with the question 
of #[true] = 'true.

There is a big difference between having datatypes be word values, 
versus having them fall under the any-word pseudotype. The latter 
seems OK, but not the former. If I understand you, it would cause 
things like [datatype? integer!] to fail, because it would return 
word!. That is, we lose them as an identifiable datatype. I use them 
for reflective tools and dialects. While the change wouldn't make 
that impossible, I like them being first class citizens as they are 
today.

No, let me clarify. I want integer! to represent a datatype, like 
1 represents an integer. So datatype? integer! should return true, 
and word? integer! should return false, just like decimal? 1 returns 
false.


I simple suggest equal? to return true, when comparing a datatype 
with a word of the same spelling. Like this is true:

>> equal? 1 1.0
== true

Technical speaking, it's an expanded coercion for the equal operator, 
=, (and so also for the equal? function).

What is the best way how to simulate R3's map! in R2? It would be 
enough to have safe key-value pairs?

in R3:
>> b: make map! ["a" "b" "b" "c"]
== make map! [
    "a" "b"
    "b" "c"
]

>> select b "b"
== "c"

in R2 I know only:
>> all [tmp: select/skip b "b" 2 first tmp]
== "c"

I really would like to know, why the hell is the result with /skip 
refinement in block:/

It's really sad to know, that we cannot expect any improvements in 
a future:/

MAP is an associative (Key <-> Value) data "storage". In R2 a correspoding 
way would be to use the hash! datatype, however, if you want to discern 
keys from values you need to use a separate Keys hash! and a separate 
Values block, otherwise you end up having Keys and Values intermixed. 
Your way of using the /skip refinement and a block is slower, however 
it searches only in Keys as well due to the /skip 2 use. When not 
used, it would search in Values.

(hope it explains it a bit)

I know the theory:/ To have separate hashes for key and values would 
be even more complicated. I would be fine if the select/skip would 
not return a block which is simply stupid... or correct me if there 
is any reason for that. It's sad we cannot have map! in R2.

In my case I will have just a few key-value pairs.. so the speed 
is not a problem, more important is to be safe that the key will 
not be mixed with values.

To have separate hashes for key and values would be even more complicated

 - that is wrong, there is no need to have two hashes, moreover, it 
 is not complicated, I wrote the corresponding software, and it is 
 easy

If I could move time back a few years and I could vote, I would like 
Carl to enhance R2 a little bit instead of starting R3 which he probably 
never finish.

Didn't he "say" that he was going to spend some weekend time on it?

Oldes, why don't you:

- ask for the R2 Map! code or
- write your own

instead of writing that "if I could"?

The question is when his weekend starts.. if his hour has so many 
minutes... but it would be nice to have his weekend using same hour 
type.

I have the code:

get-attribute: func[name /local tmp][all [tmp: select/skip attributes 
name 2 first tmp]]

but it's so UGLY.

And I will not ask.. I was asking so many times without any response 
that I gave up long time ago.

That is not complete in that it does not handle other operations 
than GET-ATTRIBUTE

I gave up even longer time ago offering my code :-p

...also, I am not sure, but maybe BrianH also offers his own version

Hm.. the reason for the additional block with the /skip is thi sone:
>> b: ["a" "b" "c" "d"   "b" "c" "d" "e"] select/skip b "b" 4
== ["c" "d" "e"]

Oldes: I was just about to write this, I asked is this a bug a few 
months ago, but no, it returns a block when you select with /skip 
because you can select more-than-one value if your skip size is > 
2 , otherwise you cannot get the further values. You select block 
of values when use /skip.

Maybe do somehing like:

>> keys: make hash! ["a" "b"]
== make hash! ["a" "b"]
>> values: ["b" "c"]
== ["b" "c"]
>> pick values index? find keys "a"
== "b"
>> pick values index? find keys "b"
== "c"

The
	pick values index? find keys
could be put in a nice function to call.

Or wrap it in a context:

map: context [
	keys: make hash! ["a" "b"]
	values: ["b" "c"]
	pick: func [value] [
		system/words/pick values index? find keys value
	]
]

>> map/pick "a"
== "b"
>> map/pick "b"
== "c"

of course... if you add one more condition to detect if the key exists... 
it does not change anything on the fact, that R2 is missing one of 
the basic functionalities natively.

Right.

I too wish, more work was put into R2, instead of doing R3. That's 
one reason, why I develop World.

That's the problem with closed source languages, if author doesn't 
add something, you're out of luck.

lol

Exactly! :)

Or ... if the language makes you do anything, like e.g. C, and what 
it does, it does well, then it doesn't matter, if it's closed source 
or not.

Geomol's right. R2 can be extended via DLLs, and R3 via extensions. 
But that might not solve all usage cases or needed fixes in Core 
...

I don't care, if my C compiler is closed source or not, because it 
just works. I also shouldn't care, if my COBOL compiler and interpreter 
is closed source or not, but I actually do, because the company behind 
can't figure out to make graphical tables (called GRIDs) the correct 
way, so my COBOL programs doesn't work as intended, and I have to 
create work-arounds. Years ago, I didn't care, if REBOL was closed 
source or open, but later I did, because I couldn't finish projects, 
I made with it.


Any future language, I would use, I don't care if it's closed or 
open, if it delivers, what it promices. If it doesn't, it's another 
case.

The problem is that what you think is the correct way to do things 
may be not

Others have needs you don't care in the end.

Ah, I have enough programming experience to figure out, if something 
is doable the 'right' way or not.

Lol, Are you 20 or what ?

:) nah

A good language is also easy to expand and integrate with other technologies. 
For some projects, it may be a good idea to have the language as 
a dynamic linked library.