World: r3wp

(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.

We all do mistakes even after years and years of practices

We all do mistakes even after years and years of practices

sure

But that doesn't exclude, that if I use some time and think about 
some problem, I can figure out, if it's doable in some language the 
'right' way.

Geomol, I already know that you made some technical choices in World 
that I would not have done because I think (maybe I'm wrong) I know 
better ways to do faster VM.

So, to my mind,you already failed in the task to deliver a promising 
clone.

Just to say that your 'needs' , expectations and technical skills 
are probably not the best in each room.
;-)

I mean, even Carl failed in that matter. Everyone do shitty design 
choices occasionally. It's why it's better to have friendly eyes 
behind our shoulder.

That's the problem with closed source languages

 - there is nothing like "closed source language". Only an interpreter/compiler 
 may be closed source.

Lad +1


The REOL Syntax project is very important in this regard, and documenting 
the differences between the clones. Being the fastest VM my not be 
John's goal, if it means other tradeoffs.

Well, sure, the speed may not be the most important property.

Copying a cyclic block:

>> blk: [a b c]
== [a b c]
>> insert/only blk blk
== [a b c]
>> blk
== [[...] a b c]
>> copy blk
== [[[...] a b c] a b c]

That's not correct, right?

Ah, it is. I just realized, when I wrote it. :)

One question to library wrapping. I have a function, which should 
return a bool from C level, according to if the communication card 
is open, or not. When I am able to open the card, it returns 1 (mapped 
to R2 integer!), if not, it returns  30605312 - does that integer 
make any sence? I mean, does it e.g. translate to some C level slot, 
overflow, or -1 value? Just curious ...

w> to binary! 30605312 
== #{0000000001D30000}

Maybe you read too many bits?

I can't influence it, it is just result from the mapped function 
 C level code bool (dunno how it is defined) to R2's integer! value. 
Was just curious ....

Pekr, bool in C is usually of char type so you should try to set 
the returned value in your routine! spec to char.

Cyphre: thanks, will try that ...

Isn't it usually integer? It's must be defined somewhere btw.

In win.h include file in LCC compiler;
typedef int BOOL;
typedef unsigned char BOOLEAN;