• Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r4wp

[#Red] Red language group

Kaj
17-Sep-2012
[1897x2]
It should solve one big part of the problem. The other big part are 
the context sensitive #define's
I also need #include's to work the same as in Red/System: relative 
to the source the path is in
DocKimbel
17-Sep-2012
[1899]
The only #include right now are Red/System includes.
Kaj
17-Sep-2012
[1900]
Yes, those I mean
DocKimbel
17-Sep-2012
[1901]
#system-include just inserts them outside of 'red context.
Kaj
17-Sep-2012
[1902]
Or do you mean paths in #system-include?
DocKimbel
17-Sep-2012
[1903x2]
The included file paths are left unchanged.
They are just inserted at beginning of intermediary script passed 
to Red/System.
Kaj
17-Sep-2012
[1905x2]
I meant the ticket I have open
The path of the source file they came from is lost
DocKimbel
17-Sep-2012
[1907]
Does such include work fine with %rsc.r?
Kaj
17-Sep-2012
[1908]
Yes, I use them everywhere
DocKimbel
17-Sep-2012
[1909]
(I mean just #include %../C-library.reds)
Kaj
17-Sep-2012
[1910x3]
By the way, I think we should eventually have a search path for includes, 
but that's for the future
Yes, I use relative include paths of that form in all my bindings 
and examples
I need them to be able to install my Fossil repositories side by 
side in one main directory and then #include between them without 
changing paths
DocKimbel
17-Sep-2012
[1913x2]
I've pushed #system-include addition, but there's probably more path-related 
patches to apply I'm afraid.
context-sensitive #define: seems to be a complicated change as it 
is the heart of the preprocessor...but context are created only during 
compilation (so after preprocessing).
Kaj
17-Sep-2012
[1915]
It would be easer if #system-include would be like #system so that 
you could wrap an extra context around Red/Sytsem code, without introducing 
an extra wrapper file. Would that be hard?
DocKimbel
17-Sep-2012
[1916]
No, trivial, I would then just remove #system-include and add an 
option to #system to have the code loaded outside of 'red context...but 
semantically, it will be a bit inconsistent with barebone #system, 
as it means "inline the Red/System code here"...Maybe I should just 
rename #system-include to solve that.
Kaj
17-Sep-2012
[1917x3]
It works as it is now, but then I run into the #define problem
This form of #system-include is probably still handy
Why does it require a block?
DocKimbel
17-Sep-2012
[1920]
I've changed it to #system-global, work exactly as #system but loads 
outside and before 'red context, should I push it?
Kaj
17-Sep-2012
[1921]
Please
DocKimbel
17-Sep-2012
[1922]
Done.
Kaj
17-Sep-2012
[1923x3]
Works with #include with an absolute path
There's an extra problem when I wrap the C binding in a context, 
but that seems unrelated
An #enum isn't prefixed with the context
DocKimbel
17-Sep-2012
[1926x2]
For the defines, I think the best option (and cheapest) would be 
that I prefix the one I use internally for Red.
It should IIRC.
Kaj
17-Sep-2012
[1928]
It's worse than that. The first error I get is on one of my #define's 
that's a struct! later in Red
DocKimbel
17-Sep-2012
[1929x2]
I guess you'll have to prefix (or suffix) them.
Which one is conflicting?
Kaj
17-Sep-2012
[1931]
That would really butcher all my bindings. And it's too much work 
just to do temporarily for the demo
DocKimbel
17-Sep-2012
[1932]
I can maybe change some on Red side, if there are not too many conflicts.
Kaj
17-Sep-2012
[1933]
It's NONE, but I really wouldn't want you to change that in Red. 
And it's just the tip of the iceberg
DocKimbel
17-Sep-2012
[1934x2]
Added new actions: AT, SKIP, BACK, NEXT, LENGTH-OF.

You can now do a bit more than just PRINT 1. ;-) See:

	a: 123
	a: a + 2
	print a * 6 - a

	b: [4 7 9 [11] test /ref 'red]

	print pick b 2
	print pick pick b 4 1
	print pick next b 1
	print pick next next b 1
	print pick back next b 1

	print length-of b
	print length-of next next b
	print length-of pick b 4
	print pick at b 2 1
	print pick skip b 2 1

	print pick at next b -1 1
	print pick skip next b -1 1
I'll extend FORM tomorrow so we can print more types.
Kaj
17-Sep-2012
[1936]
#233 is back
DocKimbel
17-Sep-2012
[1937x2]
Looking into it.
Fixed it. Going to rest now, will process other tickets tomorrow 
morning.
Kaj
17-Sep-2012
[1939]
I'm busted, too. Night
Pekr
17-Sep-2012
[1940]
Reading all the discussion about R/S source inclusion in the Red 
- it seems pretty complicated and confusing at best. Apart from the 
three options discussed on friday, it is the "least powerfull" one. 
It is not any kind of inlining R/S code into Red from the runtime 
point of view, hence I wonder, why it is not simply called an #include? 
I know you might want to two cases now:

#include %some.red
#include %some.reds


But that's distinguishable, and unifies the naming, as well as it 
does what the name suggests - it is just preprocessor kind of directive 
for including either the red, or r/s source into Red ....
DocKimbel
18-Sep-2012
[1941]
About your proposition:


- #include is for including files, not for inlining literal code, 
which is precisely the purpose of #system* directives.


- you can't use #include to include directly two different languages, 
that would be confusing for everyone and it's a semantic mismatch 
(making users think Red/System code can be directly used in Red with 
no clear separation between the two).


- #include is a preprocessor directive, #system is a compiler directive 
(processed during compilation)


- #system* directive are not complicated nor confusing, they are 
pretty simple and should look intuitive to C users (having the habit 
to inline ASM code into C). Those users are the target users for 
Red/System (remember that most Red users will never program in Red/System).
Rebolek
18-Sep-2012
[1942]
Will there be possibility to use inlined ASM code?
Pekr
18-Sep-2012
[1943x2]
Well, not coming from C kind of languages, I actually used code inclusion 
rarely. The preprocessing stuff in any language looks arcane to me, 
but that's just my feeling, as it is REALLY a long time ago, since 
I used code -> compile -> link technique (CA-Clipper - 1998 :-)


So I better wait for more "clean" way - the other method you described 
- simply what I am expecting is kind of Rebcode - writing any function 
in Red, using Red/System or C or ASM, whatever :-) But most probably 
I am confusing and create a mishmatch even in such case :-)
one small question though - what "secret project" are you guys talking 
about? :-) I expect you will not want to tell, otherwise it would 
not be secret anymore, right? :-)
DocKimbel
18-Sep-2012
[1945x2]
Inline ASM: we might add that at some point, but you can already 
access some low-level CPU/FPU features (like stack manipulation). 
I will extend that in the future to support CPU in/out commands and 
direct registers reading/writing, so ASM support will be less necessary. 
Also, there's a cheap way to support it, adding the option to inline 
machine code directly in Red/System code flow (you would have to 
use an external ASM for generating the machine code). Something like: 
inline #{....machine code...}
Secret project: that's a secret! (there's actually two secret projects, 
one by Kaj, one by me ;-))