World: r3wp
[!REBOL3]
older newer | first last |
ChristianE 24-Feb-2010 [1039] | I've been misleading, what I wanted to say was: I do not get the error Petr describes, the demo comes up. |
Graham 24-Feb-2010 [1040] | Still tracing .. what on earth is it doing?? |
Oldes 24-Feb-2010 [1041] | It's working here on XP |
Graham 24-Feb-2010 [1042] | So, the demo comes up okay for you after exiting chat? |
PeterWood 24-Feb-2010 [1043x2] | I tried the chat then demo trick under linux and Rebol crashed with a segmentation fault. Normally, the demo gives a script error. I also tried on Mac OS X but that was okay - the demo gave a script error. |
This should be reported in CureCode. | |
Graham 24-Feb-2010 [1045x2] | I was wondering why some messages don't show up on chat. Eg. #6993 |
when I do a 'n, but show when I type the number in... | |
BrianH 25-Feb-2010 [1047x3] | 6993 wasn't a message, it was a move of 2 of Paul's messages to the right heading. Not every number is a message - everything gets a number, including headers, moves, deletes, file operations, etc. |
Only messages show with n. Some file operations show with nf. Other operations don't show at all, except in effect. | |
Some messages don't show because they are private messages that don't involve you. If you can see those even by entering their numbers directly, please report that serious bug. | |
Mchean 25-Feb-2010 [1050] | any news? |
Graham 25-Feb-2010 [1051] | Yes, but can't report it ... |
Mchean 26-Feb-2010 [1052] | sigh :) |
Graham 26-Feb-2010 [1053x2] | Carl is still tidying up the GUi documents ... taking much longer than was expected |
and other issues http://twitter.com/rebol3 | |
Robert 27-Feb-2010 [1055] | Is Doc's MySQL driver working in R3? Has anyone tried to get it up & running? |
ChristianE 27-Feb-2010 [1056] | Petr, Graham, have you checked the >>CHAT >>Q >>DEMO problem after Carl has restored the chat server to an up-to-date version? That may be related? The sequence still works here. |
Graham 27-Feb-2010 [1057] | works for me now... |
Steeve 27-Feb-2010 [1058x2] | I think i will change again some habits in the way I code. It seems that the try/except idiom has better perfs than EITHER if you use it that way: >> try/except [...frequent case...][...rare case...] Try this and give me your results... f1: funct [v][either zero? v [0][1 / v]] f2: func [v][try/except [1 / v][0]] print dt [loop 100000 [f1 1]] print dt [loop 100000 [f1 0]] print dt [loop 100000 [f2 1]] print dt [loop 100000 [f2 0]] |
if the condition to check is more complex then the gain can be tremendous | |
BrianH 27-Feb-2010 [1060] | Wow, I never realized what overhead TRY/except has, but that overhead seems to be fixed. As long as you can safely run until an error without having to roll back changes, that could be a good strategy. Sticking to the R3 safety model (generating errors before it matters with functions like ASSERT) you can make code that runs faster in the default case, and safely always. |
Graham 28-Feb-2010 [1061] | We still are stuck in Cathedral mode ... |
Pekr 28-Feb-2010 [1062] | :-) |
Steeve 28-Feb-2010 [1063x2] | Still need to be confirmed. What are your results for the test I provided ? |
But we can't check anymore for the type of the last happend error with try/except. >> try/except [1 / 0][error? probe system/state/last-error] none == false. it's a problem, we can't have an accurate process error handler. I think it's a missing feature (or the error is somewhere else in the system object). | |
BrianH 28-Feb-2010 [1065x3] | >> f1: funct [v][either zero? v [0][1 / v]] >> f2: func [v][try/except [1 / v][0]] >> print dt [loop 100000 [f1 1]] 0:00:00.063264 >> print dt [loop 100000 [f1 0]] 0:00:00.044331 >> >> print dt [loop 100000 [f2 1]] 0:00:00.050118 >> print dt [loop 100000 [f2 0]] 0:00:00.124219 >> print dt [loop 100000 [f2 0]] 0:00:00.121766 |
That last one was so surprising that I ran it again. | |
But, that overhead should be fixed, regardless of what's in the blocks. | |
Paul 28-Feb-2010 [1068] | What is the best way to handle HTTP encoding in R3? For example if I get an email that has been encoded as paul%40tretbase.com? How could I convert that easily to [paul-:-tretbase-:-com]? Not sure if I need to build my own decoder or if we already have that capability. |
BrianH 28-Feb-2010 [1069x7] | I think Power Mezz has some url en/decoding functions. |
Or you can look at the source of DECODE-CGI in R2 and make something useful of it for your purposes. Nothing built into R3 though. | |
Sorry, DECODE-CGI won't help. | |
As parse rules go, it wouldn't be difficult. Try this: >> hex: charset [#"0" - #"9" #"a" - #"f" #"A" - #"F"] == make bitset! #{000000000000FFC07E0000007E} >> parse a: "paul%40tretbase.com" [any [to "%" [b: skip copy x 2 hex (b: change/part b to-char first debase/base x 16 3) :b | skip]]] a == "[paul-:-tretbase-:-com]" Now that is a modifying method, but it should be easy to adapt that to a copying method. | |
And that parse rule would work in R2 or R3. We can't R3-optimize it yet with the change rule since change rule paren hasn't been implemented yet. | |
With the full change rule it would be this: >> parse a: "paul%40tretbase.com" [any [to "%" [change [skip copy x 2 hex] (to-char first debase/base x 16) | skip]]] a | |
But that doesn't work yet - no computed changes. | |
Paul 28-Feb-2010 [1076x5] | Yeah, thanks Brian. I might role my own. |
look like I don't need to | |
R3 has what I need already. | |
This works pretty good: >> dehex "paul%40tretbase.com" == "[paul-:-tretbase-:-com]" | |
:-) | |
amacleod 28-Feb-2010 [1081] | that was easy |
Paul 28-Feb-2010 [1082x4] | hehe yeah - I thought there might be something like that. |
Is there a new method to send email in R3? | |
Ok doesn't look like it. Looks like we have to build a new send function for R3. | |
dehex doesn't totally totally decode urls. | |
Graham 28-Feb-2010 [1086x2] | I use 'use a lot attached usually to GUI buttons. Wonder if it's worthwhile to have a version like funct that automatically makes all set words local so that we don't have to declare them |
Or, I could just create anonymous functions as in 'do funct [][ ............. ] | |
Paul 28-Feb-2010 [1088] | I built my own decoder for the query-string and it works pretty good. But I was wondering what the /only refinement is for construct. This looks new in R3. |
older newer | first last |