World: r4wp

Have put some files in the folder Red/random compiled randomtest1.reds 
just yet and it still works. But the red script rndtst003.red compiles 
to give an error and not even print the line that was printed in 
ran_start function
ran_start in random-taocp.reds value seed: 310952
Add this to the issue list?

A Red program is very different, because it includes the entire Red 
environment and runtime, which is much larger than the Red/System 
environment

How are you calling your Red/System function from Red?

exactly like I do as I would from the reds counterpart.

That can't work. You can't call Red/System functions in Red

??????

Are you making calls from Red to Red/System, or are you only including 
a #system-global []?

I shared all relevant files. In my view I include using the #system-global 
in randomf.red and I make the calls also via this intermediate red 
script calling random-taocp/ran_start from the random-taocp context 
in the %random-taocp.reds script

Where are the latest ones?

For convenience I kept all scripts in one folder, and rightly so, 
it is hard enough already.

Eh latest ones? in the Red/random (I deleted the randompublic folder 
because it was old and had old files in it anyway)

Well, there you have it. In randomf.red you're using Red/System functions 
and contexts as if they're Red code. They're simply not defined in 
Red

To call Red/System code from Red, you have to write a ROUTINE to 
wrap the differences and marshall the arguments:

https://github.com/dockimbel/Red/commit/1426d1e70d4eaac19444d120f3bbdaa2fa2e438a

I'm getting this when running build.r on Linux Mint (based on Ubuntu):

Generating apk...
/bin/bash: builds/tools/aapt: Bestand of map bestaat niet
Signing apk...
jarsigner: unable to open jar file: builds/eval-unsigned.apk
Aligning apk...
/bin/bash: builds/tools/zipalign: Bestand of map bestaat niet
...all done!

Bestand of map bestaat niet
 means the file doesn't exist

life w be so muchh easier ;-)

It looks for aapt and zipalign in the wrong place, but they're not 
available, anyway

I'm diving into my first attempt at recursion in Red/System.

Thanks Doc, that did it.

Kaj: it worked fine on my Ubuntu system. Did the script download 
the binaries in builds/tools/ ? If not, can you please trace the 
reason why it didn't?

I didn't see any download activity

Try to delete the whole builds/ folder and try again.

It worked now

I ran the script with R3 first, and it bombed out just before the 
downloading. It does very little error checking, so the folder structure 
was already created, and afterwards it skips the download completely

Yes, you're supposed to use R2 for Red. ;-) The download is done 
once only, so it doesn't need extensive error checking, if something 
goes wrong, just delete the builds/ folder and run it again.

Sure, but nobody knows that's what to do

Now everbody knows. :-)

Some people claim there's a world outside of AltME

They are wrong,  there is only the hell known as Stack Overflow.

:-)

:-)

You can't call Red/System functions in Red

 that almost literally made me fall of the chair. Somehow I really 
 expected that to be inherently supported. I cannot make any chocolat 
 from the routine example atm, but as I see it now, it requires me 
 to reprogram/copy my Red/system program to Red and renaming FUNCTION 
 to ROUTINE. This means double maintenance in my eyes. 

This is definitely a point to add to the wishlist if you asked me.

Especially what good is the #system-global for then? Ah like #system 
in R/S documentation chapter 17
Also from this:

It will be possible to export some Red/System functions to be callable 
from the Red language layer. The method for such export hasn't been 
decided yet. Among possible options, it can be:

A special attribute 
in header that will list the functions to export
A function's attribute 
in the specification block
A compiler directive


I can taste that the integration is just around the corner. But which 
one? :)

Why should one want to 'hide' functions in a Red/System script you 
include? And why can one include a Red/System script in a Red script 
when you can't call the functions in it?
What is the most common use of this in practice later on?

Are there prefix equivalents for the infix operators (+ - etc.) ? 
When I enter + 3 6 in the console, it yields 6.  Why?

I can't authoriatively answer your first question (but I would guess 
the answer is no)


The interpeter  has returned 6 because it is the last value that 
it evaluated.

It would seem to be a bug that no error is raised when + has been 
used with its first argument missing.

The compiler also seems to have a bug:

The following code complies:

Red []

a: func [] [
	+ 3 6
]

print a

Its output is

3

Would you mind adding your finding to the bug tracker - https://github.com/dockimbel/Red/issues?state=open

done

Just as a reminder: error handling is not implemented yet in Red, 
so no need to add ticket about not raised errors.

The few error reports you could encounter in Red are right now, just 
hardcoded, to be able to do minimal work with Red without wondering 
what's happening.

Arnold: it seems you didn't get that Red and Red/System are two different 
languages. As they are living in different abtraction layers, you 
can't expect to directly include code from one in the other. There 
are special interfaces for that purpose, ROUTINE is the main one 
for calling Red/System code from Red. That doesn't mean that all 
your Red/System code needs to be in a routine, just the interfacing 
code. The rest can be in different libraries that you load into Red/System 
space using #include in #system or #system-global directives. Including 
Red/System code into Red directly is not possible, because, these 
are two different languages. So you need to wrap your Red/System 
code (and Red/System includes) into a #system* directive.

Remember that Red compiles to Red/System code. The #system* directives 
are ways to inline Red/System code into Red.

...or more accurately: inline Red/System code into the output of 
Red program compilation.

No in my view Red compiled to Red/System code and then to executable, 
so including the lower level Red/System in a Red program even by 
including other scripts would be evident.

And because I am compiling in this two-step rocket Red - Red/System 
and viewing Red/System as the low-level Red program ....

add 1 1
2