World: r3wp

yeah, All of Brett's pages are awesome.

In a way, they have been the standard for a lot of my inquiries. 
I think it's because I personally learn best by example. I know some, 
if not most of you can actually figure things out given some information. 
It seems so logical, and it is.

it took me years before I decided to tackle a real PARSE problem. 
 it was painfull to learn, but once its done, I realized that PARSEing 
is actually quite easy.  much moreso than regexp at least.

words, wishes...


Did you contribute to the above mentioned dedicated RT-independent 
rebol-parsing compendium?

(that was meant especially for Max, as a question)

no, and my comments where not wishes or critiscism, they where just 
an observation.   for newbies, this is what is mostly missing, that's 
all.


I'm pretty good at parsing nowadays, but I have 0%time to write docs.

Then why do you even suggest (together with Henrik, to be fair), 
that there is no "RT-independent REBOL parsing compendium"?

My understanding is, that you did not bother to read it exactly like 
Henrik, while feeling knowledgeable enough to criticize its contents...

Holding out for a real book, Maxim?

And Ladislav still fails to understand why this is not a good way 
to learn PARSE. (ok, back to work)

How come you don't even know it contains lots of parsing examples?

For Henrik, the best way to learn Parse is to read the source code 
of the PARSE function. I have got a surprise for you. None of:


general formal grammars, BNF, regular expressions, TDPL, PEGs, etc... 


are taught by showing source code of some implementation and telling 
the user to learn the respective system from it

Such an approach would be unreasonable for the majority of the people.

Moreover, BNFs, general formal grammars, etc... are actually systems 
that are meant to be usable for humans as well (at least mostly), 
in which case there is no implementation you could show to other 
people. (somebody wanting to show an x-ray picture of a human brain, 
or what???)

There is no general best way to teach parsing. Most people (if you 
include non-programmers) won't be able to learn it with any method. 
For the people who can learn it, different methods are more effective 
for different people. For some people, reading the source is the 
best method. For most others it isn't. Teaching hard subjects is 
hard.

yep.

I agree. Late studies in learning show, some children learn by doing, 
some need to hear it explained, some can learn by reading, some need 
to do something physical while learning, etc. I guess, it's the same 
with adults.

I worked on a project that failed because it depended on teaching 
parsing to unskilled data entry people - not my idea, and I couldn't 
explain to the people in charge why it was a bad one, because even 
teaching that was hard. It would be great if it were otherwise.

Actually, it depended on unskilled data entry people being able to 
write parse specs without being taught - even worse.

I couldn't explain to the people in charge why it was a bad one


Many people in charge isn't well positioned for their job. And they're 
often very hard to fire.

yeah, its probably deeply rooted into how skill someone is at perceptions 
of different types.  


its like trying to dance with an arythmic person... they just can't 
do it even if they love the music!

(last comment related to Geomol's comment on learning)

- "You're unable to convince someone to change his mind with a logical 
argument, If that someone is wrong because of illogical ruling." 
I don't remember the exact citation

shit it - shit out   ;-)

Sorry I should have say "parameter" instead of "argument"
Or maybe not ;-)

(as opposed to   shit in - shit out     hehe that wasn't a typo... 
it might have been too subtle)

are you mixing up groups?

lol

I was reacting to that one:
I couldn't explain to the people in charge why it was a bad one

Is there something like reform/with ["id" "name" "address" "city"] 
","
where there result will be "id,name, address,city" in rebol?

I've found a solution replace/all reform ["id" "name" "address" "city"] 
" " ","

That may not always give you what you'd expect  if the strings have 
embedded spaces:

    replace/all reform ["id" "last name" "address" "city"] " " ","
    == "id,last,name,address,city"

This may work better in that situation:

    skip head remove back tail remove back tail  replace/all mold ["id" 
    "last name" "address" "city"]  {" "} ","  2

it would be so nice to have an interleave function, or an opposite 
of extract.

reform interleave ["id" "name" "address" "city"] ","

Thanks Sunanda for pointing the issue, this should have saved me 
from debugging predictable error in the future :-)

@Henrik: I just read about ReBin http://www.rebol.com/article/0044.html
. Yes, this would be what I'm looking for. A binary representation 
of valid Rebol values.

sorry, wrong chatroom

I'm using this function to do that:

merge: func [b [block!] /local t r] [parse b [some [t: any-type! 
(append r: "" join form first t either tail? next t [""][","])]] 
r]
>> merge ["a" 5 *]
== "a,5,*a,5,*"

can be easily extended to use optional separator char.

Oops! Sorry small mistake, here is the correct one :)

merge: func [b [block!] /local t r] [r: copy "" parse b [some [t: 
any-type! (append r join form first t either tail? next t [""][","])]] 
r]

Here's my version.

; A dialected version of this could be very flexible; allowing more
    ; than just fixed size groupings.

    ; This could also be done by adding a /SKIP refinement to INSERT.
    delimit: func [
        ;[throw catch]
        "Insert a delimiter between series values."
        series [series!] "Series to delimit. Will be modified."
        value            "The delimiter to insert between items."

        /skip   ;<-- be sure to use system/words/skip in this func

            size [integer!] "The number of items between delimiters. Default 
            is 1."
    ][

        ; Hmmm, I wonder if we could extend the function spec dialect

        ; to include constraints like this declaratively? And should

        ; we trap the arg like this, or just use MAX to make sure we

        ; have a positive value? I think I'll do the latter for now,
        ; but leave this here as a comment.
        ;if all [size not positive? size] [
        ;    throw make error! join [script invalid-arg] size
        ;]
        ; By default, delimiters go between each item.
        ; MAX catches zero and negative sizes.
        size: max 1 any [size 1]

        ; If we aren't going to insert any delimiters, just return the series.

        ; This check means FORSKIP should always give us a series result,
        ; rather than NONE, so we can safely inline HEAD with it.
        if size + 1 > length? series [return series]
        ; We don't want a delimiter at the beginning.
        series: system/words/skip series size

        ; Use size+n because we're inserting a delimiter on each pass,

        ; and need to skip over that as well. If we're inserting a

        ; series into a string, we have to skip the length of that

        ; series. i.e. the delimiter value is more than a single item
        ; we need to skip.
        size: size + any [

            all [list? series  0] ; lists behave differently; no need to skip 
            dlm.

            all [any-string? series  series? value  length? value]
            all [any-string? series  length? form value]
            1
        ]
        head forskip series size [insert/only series value]
    ]

make-csv: func [block] [rejoin delimit copy block #","]

Nice indeed.
Here is improved version of mine:

merge: func [
	"Merge a block using a delimiter. Default is coma."
	b [block!] "Block to merge."
	/with c [char! string!] "Delimiter char or string."
	/local t r
] [
	r: make string! 64
	c: any [c ","]
	parse reduce b [some [t: any-type! (
		append r join first t either tail? next t [""][c]
	)]]
	r
]

>> merge [a "x" 234 '*]
== "5,x,234,*"
>> merge/with [a "x" 234 '*] ":"
== "5:x:234:*"
>> merge/with [a "x" 234 '*] "---"
== "5---x---234---*"


Benchmark results are almost same with Gregg's. Executing the function 
for 1 million times take 16, 17 second for both on my machine, core 
2 duo, 2.8 Ghz, xp pro.

since many years I use this function from  Andrew from time to time
rejoin: func [ 
    "Reduces and joins a block of values." 
    block [block!] "Values to reduce and join" 
    /with string; [ string! ] 
][ 
    if empty? block: reduce block [return block] 

    if with [ block: next block forskip block 2 [ insert block string 
    ] ] 
    block: head block 
    append either series? first block [copy first block] [ 
        form first block] next block 
]

This is all great, many thanks!

Is it possible to "copy" a face?

I want to open a window with some gadgets, the user modifies them 
but then I want to restore the previous situation.
This does not work:

win: layout [slider 100x20]
win-copy: make win []
view win
win: make win-copy []
view win


If you move the slider in the first window it appears the same in 
the second.
Any hint? Thanks in advance.

better or easier to simply layout the same layout twice.

Would using multiple layouts and subpanels do what you are looking 
for?
   http://www.rebol.com/how-to/subpanels.html