World: r4wp
[!REBOL3] General discussion about REBOL 3
older newer | first last |
Marco 17-Mar-2013 [2122] | @Gregg: >> probe cfor [num: 1] [num <= 3] [num: num + 1] [print num "a"] for me it should print: 1 2 3 and give "a" as the result (as it does #884 NOW ;) ) |
Gregg 17-Mar-2013 [2123x3] | Ah, yes. Thanks Marco. |
I will let Ladislav correct me where I'm wrong, but it may just be due to him trying to keep CFOR simple. That is, it inserts the bump/incr block at the tail of the body, but doesn't want to return the result of that, so it returns the head instead, but what it should return is the result of the original body tail. | |
More clearly, it should return the last thing evaluated in the original body. | |
MaxV 19-Mar-2013 [2126] | Can anyone solve the following bug https://github.com/angerangel/r3bazaar/issues/3 ? |
MarcS 19-Mar-2013 [2127x2] | q |
Proposed fix for cc#1967, https://github.com/rebol/r3/pull/106 | |
Gregg 19-Mar-2013 [2129x2] | @BrianH, when you say "And any loop construct that requires any kind of manual reducing of its arguments in order to have it take the result of an expression is a definite no-go.", does "manual reducing" mean having the user do it? e.g., if I get a spec passed to my dialected LOOP func, and I REDUCE it or DO/NEXT internally, is that a no-go? If so, where should I look for the reasons and guidelines about it? |
e.g., in order to support Sunanda's example: loop [i ser skip ser 5 2] [print mold i] Can I do this in my func: spec: repend reduce [spec/1] next spec | |
MarcS 21-Mar-2013 [2131x7] | Provisional SHA-2 implementation, https://github.com/0branch/r3/commits/sha2-experimental |
I haven't committed an updated Makefile, so even if you're on Linux be sure to 'make make' first. | |
Tested on Linux and OSX, interested in hearing whether it functions correctly on Windows. | |
Usage, | |
>> checksum/method to-binary "A simple SHA-2 test." 'sha256 == #{E57EBDB51368F9A7ACE63E115193AEAD5E377742E0B4CD6B735CF5AAD49E67EB} | |
SHA2_Series could switch on width (224, 256, ... -- perhaps defined in an enum) rather than a symbol, but this made the logic in N_checksum cleaner. | |
Anyway, this is just a draft. | |
Ladislav 21-Mar-2013 [2138] | Thanks for your activity, Marc much appreciated. |
MarcS 21-Mar-2013 [2139] | No problem; thanks for saying so. |
Ladislav 21-Mar-2013 [2140x2] | Arnold wrote (Red group): "R3 should follow this. " - I guess it might make sense to write it as a CC ticket (wish). Otherwise, I am neutral on this, not needing a shortcut for quit, but a user poll (opinions, please?) my reveal that preferences are against Q being a shortcut for QUIT. |
Also, Marc, I think you can use Announce for your new pull requests. (but they can be here too, no problem) | |
MarcS 21-Mar-2013 [2142] | Oh, sure; sorry if I've been misusing this room. |
Ladislav 21-Mar-2013 [2143] | No, you have not, in fact (at least IMO). |
Cyphre 21-Mar-2013 [2144] | MarcS: cool stuff! I planned to add SHA256 myself to enhance TLS scheme so your work will be useful, thanks! |
MarcS 21-Mar-2013 [2145] | Neat, glad to hear it. Again, this is just a test; feedback appreciated. |
Gregg 21-Mar-2013 [2146] | I use q in the console a lot. |
Maxim 21-Mar-2013 [2147] | q should not be set by default. anyone can add shortcuts for such stuff easily in their %user.r maybe we could even add a function which define all the "command-line" shortcuts, thus allowing them to be undefined by default. |
NickA 21-Mar-2013 [2148] | @MarcS: I'll try sha256 with Amazon AWS - very helpful, thank you! |
Endo 22-Mar-2013 [2149] | Q is not necessary in scripts but it is very useful on console. |
Ladislav 23-Mar-2013 [2150] | Continuing the discussion from "Rebol School". What if we changed (simplified) R3 functions to have O(1) variable access? I have got an idea how to do it sacrificing some of the features. That should not be painful taking into account that closures are available. |
Gregg 23-Mar-2013 [2151x2] | I think we should consider this heavily. Ladislav's points, and Brian's analysis in http://issue.cc/r3/1946make it clear that we need to understand the differences, and that we can probably get a large gain with very small tradeoffs. |
The average user shouldn't know. R2 users will need to know about behavior differences, but I think the long term benefits are worth the small pain it may cause. | |
MaxV 25-Mar-2013 [2153] | Hello, here you can find a user that have difficulties to build Rebol3 on Solaris, please mayyou help him? http://rebol.informe.com/forum/rebol-3-f9/building-rebol-r3-on-solaris-t40.html |
Ladislav 25-Mar-2013 [2154x2] | tell him he shall use r3 for r3-make, not R2 (but, maybe, r2-forward would help? ) |
otherwise, he could probably make make on a different machine, where he can get an r3 interpreter | |
Cyphre 26-Mar-2013 [2156] | Important message for all R3 graphics fans: I have finished IMAGE datatype(including all image codecs and other related code) change so it uses 'standard' alphachannel values (ie. 0-trasparent 255-opaque)to be compatible with the 'rest of world'. Without this change we would have problems to connect r3 with graphics systems on misc platforms/graphics frameworks etc. This change will be in the upcoming revised R3 graphics code which is being worked on. So that is just FYI to avoid any duplicated efforts(in case you wanted to work on that in the feature). |
Pekr 26-Mar-2013 [2157] | Cool news ideed! |
Endo 26-Mar-2013 [2158] | Cool!! Great work Cyphre! |
Henrik 26-Mar-2013 [2159] | cool :-) |
NickA 26-Mar-2013 [2160] | Really glad to hear progress! |
MaxV 26-Mar-2013 [2161] | Where will you publish it? |
Gregg 26-Mar-2013 [2162] | Go Cyhpre Go! |
Oldes 26-Mar-2013 [2163] | Nice.. it was my request :-) |
Ladislav 27-Mar-2013 [2164] | http://issue.cc/r3/2006 |
Gregg 27-Mar-2013 [2165] | Interesting idea. It seems like it would work natrually most of the time, but could create subtle issues that have to be explained. e.g. repeat i j: 100 [] or repeat i: j: 100 [] I would love to hear Carl give his opinion on it. |
GrahamC 28-Mar-2013 [2166] | I parsed out a username @C\u00E1ssio so what do I need to do to show this as Cássio on a web page? |
GrahamC 29-Mar-2013 [2167] | We're missing UDP scheme in R3 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15700937/how-to-implement-udp-scheme-in-rebol3 |
GiuseppeC 30-Mar-2013 [2168x2] | It is a great now coming from a great man Cyphre ! |
*Great news ! | |
Gregg 31-Mar-2013 [2170x2] | I have an updated SPLIT-PATH, modeled on Ladislav's implementation where it holds that file = rejoin split-path file This does not match current REBOL behavior. His version arguably makes more sense, but will break code in cases like this: %/c/test/test2/ REBOL == [%/c/test/ %test2/] Ladislav's == [%/c/test/test2/ %""] Ladislav's func only seems to go really wrong in the case of ending with a slash an that's the only slash in the value which return an empty path and entire filespec as the target. Schemes (http://) don't work well either. REBOL also dirizes the file path if it's %. or %.., which Ladislav's does not. e.g. [%foo/ %../] == split-path %foo/.. |
split-path: func [ "Returns a block containing a path and target, by splitting a filespec." filespec [any-string!] /local target ][ either any [ ; It's a url ending with a slash. This doesn't account for ; formed URLs. To do that, we would have to search for "://" all [slash = last filespec] all [url? filespec slash = last filespec] ; Only one slash, and it's at the tail. all [target: find/tail filespec slash tail? target] ][ reduce [copy filespec copy %""] ][ target: tail filespec if slash = last target [decr target] target: any [find/reverse/tail target slash filespec] reduce [copy/part filespec target to file! target] ] ] | |
older newer | first last |