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

World: r3wp

[Core] Discuss core issues

Ladislav
14-Nov-2010
[477]
http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/r3blog.r?view=0090
Oldes
14-Nov-2010
[478]
:-D
Maxim
15-Nov-2010
[479]
the later switch doesn't work like a select anymore.. it finds and 
then skips to a block, which allows multiple keys per block.  its 
very usefull.
Ladislav
15-Nov-2010
[480]
Aha, did not notice that, not using it extensively
Maxim
15-Nov-2010
[481]
I use it almost exclusively in my stuff, although I've been using 
case a lot more lately.
Sunanda
16-Nov-2010
[482]
Any thoughts on what should happen if you modify the cond-block of 
a WHILE while executing the WHILE?

Take this code for example:

    a: 0
    b: [a < 5]  ;; cond-block of WHILE
    c: [        ;; body-block of WHILE
         print a
         a: a + 1
         insert b false   ;;  modify the cond-block
         ]

    a while b c

R3 ... acts as if the code were:
     a while copy b c
  so the modification to b is ignored

R2/View and R2/Core Crash with a corrupt datatype 192 (or 64)


None of them seem to allow inflight modifcation of the cond-block.
BrianH
16-Nov-2010
[483x4]
I have a suspicion that the answer would differ based on whether 
the modification is performed in the cond block vs. the body block, 
but if what you describe is true then that would make sense. I'm 
going to run some tests.
The trick of course is that modification of the INSERT and APPEND 
variety can result in reallocating the block, and native code wouldn't 
necessarily notice the change since it would still be referring to 
the old version. It's not quite the same thing with REMOVE and CHANGE 
style modifications.
In R3:
>> while b: [change back tail b false true] [1]
== none
>> while b: [remove back tail b false true] [1]
== none
>> while b: [false true] [print 1 remove back tail b]
1
== []
>> while b: [true] [print 1 append b false]
1
== [true false]
>> while b: [append b false true] [print 1]
== none
>> while b: [append/dup b false 1000 true] [print 1]
== none


Clearly modifications seem to work in R3, at least to the tail (which 
is the portion of the block that would affect the result), even if 
a realloc is necessary.
Your code made inserts at the beginning of the code block, which 
wouldn't affect the result since it is only the last expression that 
matters in the cond block (except for side effects).
GrahamC
16-Nov-2010
[487x3]
>> 1 ** 2
== 1.0
>> help **
USAGE:
    number ** exponent

DESCRIPTION:
     Returns the first number raised to the second number.
     ** is an op value.

ARGUMENTS:
     number -- (Type: number)
     exponent -- (Type: number)
>>

what's the justification of returning a decimal value?
for retu..
I guess I should just use shift/left instead of '**
BrianH
16-Nov-2010
[490]
** uses a decimal operation, so if it didn't return a decimal it 
would have conversion losses. For powers of 2 SHIFT is better.
GrahamC
17-Nov-2010
[491]
I was thinking of powers of integers so that makes sense
Sunanda
17-Nov-2010
[492]
Mean WHILE.....Thanks for debugging my example, Brian. I got confused 
and reported the wrong thing.


Yes -- on R3 if is possible to modify the cond-block and that modification 
will be respected. That''s how I hoped it would be.


It is not possible to _replace_ the cond-block by reassigning its 
word. But that's understandable and probably exactly what we'd all 
want:

   cb: [true cb: [n < 3] true]       ;; cond-block that overwrites itself
    n: 0

    while cb [n: n + 1 print [n cb]]   ;; WHILE that uses original cond-block
Ladislav
17-Nov-2010
[493x3]
Re: ";; cond-block that overwrites itself" I am having trouble with 
this formulation, since it is not true; the block (when evaluated), 
just changes what the CB variable refers to, but surely does not 
everwrite itself.
err: 'cb and overwrite
we need to make distinction between overwriting a variable, and overwriting 
a block
Anton
17-Nov-2010
[496x3]
Sunanda should know better.
Perhaps WHILE could also accept a word! for its condition parameter, 
and when it does, evaluates it to the block it is expected to reference 
before continuing to evaluate as usual.
Eg.
	while 'cb [...]
That functionality is pretty easy to by evaluating the word inside 
the condition block yourself.
eg.
	while [do cb] [...]

so I don't think it's really necessary.
BrianH
19-Nov-2010
[499]
What should this function be called, and what options does it need?

change-in: funct [key value] [
    either a: find block key [change next a :value][
        repend block [key :value]
    ]
]


It basically implements the a/key: value operation of maps, but for 
series.
Sunanda
19-Nov-2010
[500]
Andrew Martin chose ASSOCIATE for that sort of thing:
   http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=associate.r
BrianH
19-Nov-2010
[501]
SQL calls it MERGE, because UPDATE was taken.
ChristianE
19-Nov-2010
[502]
I suppose you had FUNCT [BLOCK KEY VALUE] in mind for the above, 
Brian? If so, I think I like MERGE much, but every now and then someone 
has to suggest ALTER
Gregg
19-Nov-2010
[503]
I vote for UPDATE. It should be able to handle more than ports, even 
if the behavior isn't exactly the same.
ChristianE
19-Nov-2010
[504]
Yes, of course, Gregg, UPDATE only working on ports seems indeed 
too limited for such a nice word. 


BTW, Brian, is the above behaviour to return after the change for 
updates and at the insertion for inserts intended?

>> update: :change-in
>> attributes: []
== []
>> update attributes 'color red
== [color 255.0.0]
>> update attributes 'color blue
== [] ; or rather [color 0.0.255]
Maxim
19-Nov-2010
[505]
its the natural completement to SELECT, so UPDATE is quite natural.
ChristianE
19-Nov-2010
[506x2]
On the other side, to answer your question, it's related to SELECT 
and should probably support most, if not all, of SELECT's refinements, 
too. That's a bit of a stretch, because for ports UPDATE probably 
needs to be very fast and can't be thwarted by too complicated refinement 
handling?
Ah, Max, you're first ;-)
Maxim
19-Nov-2010
[508]
hehe
Andreas
19-Nov-2010
[509x2]
UPSERT
Widely used term (in database circles) for this operation.
BrianH
19-Nov-2010
[511x3]
I wasn't the original author, but I'm willing to bet that the return 
value wasn't considered. The best behavior would be to return the 
head.
Same for the [block yey value] thing :)
Andreas, the recent SQL standards call this operation MERGE, partly 
because UPSERT sounds terrible.
GrahamC
19-Nov-2010
[514x3]
Can anyone suggest a free tool that can be used to decrypt files 
that have been encrypted using Rebol's Rijndael using a 128 bit key?
And not Rebol!
ie. I want to be sure that if I send a file encrypted using AES, 
that someone can decrypt it.
PeterWood
19-Nov-2010
[517x2]
Try here: http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/aes.html
or this http://people.eku.edu/styere/Encrypt/JS-AES.html
GrahamC
19-Nov-2010
[519]
those only encrypt/decrypt text .. looking for a file tool
PeterWood
20-Nov-2010
[520]
via Google http://www.aescrypt.com/
Gregg
20-Nov-2010
[521]
-1 for UPSERT.
GrahamC
20-Nov-2010
[522x3]
aescrypt looks good .. now to see if it can read a file encrypted 
by Rebol
Hmm ... http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=crypt.r


I changed the strength to 256, and algorithm to rijndael .. and encrypted 
a file, but get an out of memory when I try to decrypt it :(
the other issue is that Carl uses checksum/secure to turn the passphrase 
into a binary encryption so tricky to get another tool to decrypt 
using that binary key
Sunanda
20-Nov-2010
[525]
checksum/secure is a SHA-1 hash.....Hashes are not decryptable, but 
you should find other tools that can produce a SHA-1 hash.
GrahamC
20-Nov-2010
[526]
the difficulty is pasting the binary as input to the fields used 
by programs such as aescrypt