World: r3wp
[RAMBO] The REBOL bug and enhancement database
older newer | first last |
Maxim 3-Jan-2007 [2392] | then we are 5 ! (IIRC Ladislav also thinks this is very usefull) |
Anton 3-Jan-2007 [2393] | Gabriele, well then, I think we have a mandate to increase the importance. If Carl gets mad at you, you can point at me. :) |
Maxim 4-Jan-2007 [2394] | and me :-) |
Ladislav 5-Jan-2007 [2395] | does this deserve mentioning in RAMBO? block: next [1] copy/part block -2147483647 ; == [1] copy/part block -2147483648 ; == [] |
Gabriele 5-Jan-2007 [2396] | not sure... but one more ticket won't kill us :) |
Anton 5-Jan-2007 [2397] | Hmm.. I've often considered whether to immediately submit a post of dubious importance. It would be nice to reliably delay my submission by six months or so. Maybe by that time the submission would become irrelevant because of a fix or new rebol version etc, and by not posting it I am keeping others free from distraction. But I am not using calendar software to remind me. (One of my goals this year is to start using calendar software.) |
Maxim 5-Jan-2007 [2398] | one of goals this year is to start using A calendar... period ; -) |
Anton 5-Jan-2007 [2399] | (Well, I currently use a paper-based diary.) |
Maxim 5-Jan-2007 [2400] | I used a mangled brain with continuous stack overflow... ;-) |
Anton 5-Jan-2007 [2401] | Stack overflow - same here. Not something to be proud of. |
Maxim 5-Jan-2007 [2402x2] | just tooo many projects only only coding, but the house, familly ,etc... |
oops first only=not | |
JaimeVargas 6-Jan-2007 [2404] | Lad, I think it is sensible to add to RAMBO. But what is a sensible result. For that case? |
Ladislav 7-Jan-2007 [2405] | Jaime: since all other negative values yield [1], it seems like the intended result and the least surprise. Any other opinions? |
Anton 7-Jan-2007 [2406] | I agree - the least surprise. |
JaimeVargas 7-Jan-2007 [2407x4] | Humm. I think it should return [] |
Since tail? next [1] ;== true and next next [] ;== [] | |
Also, >> copy/part [1 2 3] -1 == [] | |
So I don't see why copy/part next [1] should yield [1] | |
Anton 7-Jan-2007 [2411x2] | copy/part is relative >> copy/part at [1 2 3 4 5] 4 -2 == [2 3] |
I think it's not well known. | |
JaimeVargas 8-Jan-2007 [2413] | Anton thats not the issue copy/part is missbehaving when the block is at its TAIL position. |
Anton 8-Jan-2007 [2414x2] | You misunderstand - the bug is not because the series index is at the TAIL, it is because the copy/part RANGE is -2147483648 |
To be clear ; when the copy/part RANGE is *negative* it copies *backwards* from the series index. This is useful, but not well known, I think. | |
Ladislav 8-Jan-2007 [2416] | Anton is right: >> copy/part at [1 2 3 4 5] 4 -3 == [1 2 3] >> copy/part at [1 2 3 4 5] 4 -2147483647 == [1 2 3] >> copy/part at [1 2 3 4 5] 4 -2147483648 == [] |
sqlab 8-Jan-2007 [2417] | #4216 is still valid with REBOL/View 2.7.5.3.1 3-Jan-2007 always corrupt datatype: .. at 201 Does the message helps my XP wants to send to MS? |
Pekr 8-Jan-2007 [2418x2] | not sure, but maybe there is a cache listing .... |
imo if it is reproducable, then RT can debug it, even without any further info ... | |
Anton 8-Jan-2007 [2420] | sqlab, I don't get any error on 2.7.5.3.1: >> get-modes s: open tcp://:87 'port-modes == [read write binary lines no-wait direct] |
Ladislav 11-Jan-2007 [2421x3] | hi, did anybody notice, that sometimes a-value: make port! http:// works, while sometimes is end up as follows: ** User Error: No network server for HTTP is specified ** Near: a-value: make port! http:// |
it ends up - sorry for spelling | |
the first result can be obtained e.g. by starting a fresh REBOL console first and then type in the expression the second one can be obtained in Windows by defining a Do action for .r files as follows: C:\Rebol\sdk-2-6-2\tools\rebview.exe "%1" and then right-clicking on a file containing just a REBOL header and the above mentioned expression and picking the Do command | |
Anton 12-Jan-2007 [2424x2] | So does the second way always produce the error ? |
I don't seem to have the option to create a Do command in WinXP SP1 | |
Gabriele 12-Jan-2007 [2426x2] | ladislav, could it be that the second way skips user.r and thus does not set a default network server? |
ie. can you verify a set-net is being executed before that? | |
Ladislav 12-Jan-2007 [2428x4] | checking |
indeed, Gabriele, if I make sure set-net is executed, the problem does not occur | |
Anton - I am using WinXP SP2, but I am positive that it is possible in SP1 too | |
you can define the action in Windows explorer, check registered file types | |
Gabriele 12-Jan-2007 [2432] | ok, so it's not really a bug; it's just that when you have a default network server, rebol uses that for any protocol. (set net does not actually set the smtp server; it sets the default server. since the send function does not specify any server, the default server is used to send email; that's why the default server is normally set to the smtp server) |
Ladislav 12-Jan-2007 [2433x2] | thanks |
what do you think about this: 0:0:0.1 = 0:0.1 ; == true doesn't it look strange? | |
Izkata 12-Jan-2007 [2435] | Very, considering 0:0 defaults to hours:minutes - >> 0:0 == 0:00 >> 0:0.1 == 0:00:00.1 |
Gabriele 12-Jan-2007 [2436] | hmm... you can have decimal only for seconds... so i guess rebol tries to make sense of 0:0.1 by assuming you meant 0:0:0.1 |
Izkata 13-Jan-2007 [2437] | Maybe it should convert 0:0.1 into 0:0:6 ? IIRC, Ti calculators do that when working with degrees/minutes/seconds... |
Gabriele 13-Jan-2007 [2438x3] | 0:0 is ambiguous. rebol normally takes that as hours:minutes because it's the most common case ("it's 10:07 am now"). but when you write 1:0.7, rebol can see that you probably meant minutes:seconds, so it interprets it that way. |
if the format was something like 10h12m3s, then you could write 0h0.1m and it could be taken as 0:0:6. | |
anyway, i guess Carl will change it to whatever is the most useful for people, so if most people think that 0:0.1 should mean 0:0:6 he will probably change it. | |
Maxim 15-Jan-2007 [2441] | I'm not sure I'd change the time... the above, as explained by Gabriele is what is happening, and its very logical... the dot is consistent. and fixes the inconsistency of 0:10:0 and 0:10 being the same thing. |
older newer | first last |