World: r3wp

Kaj: it seems I have introduced a regression on logic! handling in 
last commits. I will fix that asap.

Kaj: issue should be fixed now, I have added a couple new tests to 
avoid new regressions for such returned values.

Thanks! Logic! returns work again, but now I have another problem

I'm on it.

Issue fixed.

Thanks. Everything is peaceful again in paradise

Good! :) I will finally have some time to spend on the AVR port.

I hope so. I see a cload coming, but maybe it will drift past :-)

cloud

I've updated my bindings to the new PRINT form and marked them as 
needing the latest Red/System

Makes me think that having the release version stored in compiler 
and enforcing a header NEED: field might help...

Probably. I was recently looking for the compiler version, but couldn't 
find it

It would have to be quite precise, though. Currently, the first 0.2.1 
release won't do due to the bugs

Is there a limit to the number of arguments that can be passed to 
(variadic) functions?

In the current implementation for IA-32, arguments total size is 
limited to 255 bytes. No special limit is set on variadic functions 
other than that.

The number of arguments, or the combined size of the arguments?

Combined size on stack.

Have you reached that limit?

No, but I'm thinking about implementing dialects in typed function 
calls. :-)

Would that work out to 30 arguments for a typed function?

You should leave that to Red...I wonder if I didn't open a pandora 
box by allowing type to be passed with arguments...:-)

You're not going the Bjarne Stroustrup route where you declare RTTI 
evil, are you? ;-)

I think typed data should be used everywhere. It's very useful in 
PRINT, isn't it?

30 arguments: that's 30 * 4 * 2 bytes = 240 bytes, so that should 
fit in.

Don't the count and the pointer count?

ah yes, you're right, there's more to add...let me see...

hmm, I haven't looked correctly at the code, the stack limit is for 
local variables storage (255 bytes) not for function arguments.

Too many context switching today, I can't even properly read my own 
code comments. :-/

I once went on vacation for two weeks, and then stared at my code 
for a full day, fearing that I couldn't program anymore :-)

Unfortunately, my brain cells are too damaged by code to experiment 
such feeling. ;-)

About RTTI: I don't know if there are good or evil, hard to say. 
Typed data could be generalized, opening a lot of new possibilities. 
I just haven't had the time to experiment it to see if it would bring 
more advantages than issues. Your (and others) feedback on that would 
be very useful to me.

Also for fixed arity functions, the function spec block might become 
quite verbose:


foo: func [[typed] arg1 [...] type1 [integer!] arg2 [...] type2 [integer!]...] 
[ ... ]


Maybe the type numbers could be packed in a byte array and passed 
as an array pointer to make it easier to declare and use...?

Something like: 


    foo: func [ [typed] arg1 [...] arg2 [...] type [pointer! [byte!]] 
    ][
        ;-- type/1 => type of arg1
        ;-- type/2 => type of arg2
        ...
    ]

I'm very pleased with the new typed functions, as they should enable 
small low-level dialects. What I've learned from REBOL is that typed 
data with a standardised type system is sufficient to implement simple 
dialects, and that these are very useful to keep interfaces compatible 
while evolving them, because it's much more flexible than a fixed 
number of arguments with fixed types

Don't you miss the word! datatype to implement dialects in Red/System?

I probably will, but you can always define a list of constants yourself

I don't mean fullblown dynamic dialects, but a lightweight version 
for efficient low-level interfaces

I've implemented SDL events, including mouse input and key presses

Here's an SDL paint program:

#include %../SDL.reds


log-error: does [  ; Log current SDL error.
	print [sdl-form-error newline]
]


red:	as-byte FFh
green:	as-byte FFh
blue:	as-byte FFh

screen:		as sdl-surface! 0

event:			declare sdl-event!
mouse-event:	declare sdl-mouse-motion-event!

either sdl-begin sdl-init-all [
	screen: sdl-set-video-mode 640 480 32  sdl-software-surface

	either as-logic screen [
	while [all [
		sdl-await-event event
		event/type <> as-byte sdl-quit
	]][
		if event/type = as-byte sdl-mouse-moved [
			mouse-event: as sdl-mouse-motion-event! event

			if as-logic (as-integer mouse-event/pressed?) and FFh [

    unless plot screen  mouse-event/x-y and FFFFh  mouse-event/x-y >>> 
    16  red green blue [
					log-error
				]
			]
		]
	]
	][
		log-error
	]

	sdl-end
][
	log-error
]

I hereby name it PeterPaint, after the friend whose birthday we're 
going to celebrate tomorrow :-)

should upload it to the red program repository

+1

PeterPaint aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaah ... PetPaint would have been 
out of limit ?

hexadecimals used fort  event trigger comparaison could be holded 
in a meaning word ?

Impresive Kaj can you do us a set of widgets in SDL or just the smallest 
possible VID and the widgets will be designed later

I really like the  Idea of VID a single face that as all possibilities 
and you just activated /deactivate the parts you want or not this 
is for me the core meaning of VID.

Looks very nice Kaj! Is your SDL binding available to download somewhere 
yet?

Re RTTI: One drawback is that you loose arguments type-checking, 
so some errors won't be caught at compile-time.

Yes, it makes things a step more dynamic, so you move some of the 
checking to runtime. But that's actually the point: you can then 
develop interfaces that can be loosely compatible with a time range 
of interface versions. It's the philosophy of static everything versus 
declarative everything in REBOL and XML. In the beginning of computing, 
static seemed more correct, but these days it has turned out that 
everything has to be able to withstand change as well as possible