World: r4wp

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

What you describe is not #include directive, it's #system. Including 
Red/System code into Red (means mixing both Red/System and Red source 
codes) is simply not possible.

coudn't it be done with the jit, if given a block to compile on demand? 
 (not saying its implemented, just thinking about how it could be 
done).   sort of like inlining ASM code in C.

You'd wrap ASM in C with an ASM marker, wouldn't you?

yes, in the compilers which support it.

Same thing. You need to wrap Red/System code inlined in Red with 
a Red/System marker

ok, so isn't that what Arnold is asking, basically?

No, he wants Red to read his mind. That's a common request among 
people :-)

I think its a common request in all languages ;-)

One could think of some constructs to integrate Red/System and Red 
even more closely than through a ROUTINE, but it's questionable whether 
it would be worth it

Android APK build script now works fine on OSX too.

Finished my first crack at recursion in Red/System.  Works great! 
 Uncovered a bug (not in recursion, but in pointer indexing), but 
found a way to work around it for now.

My Red/System script (through some technical wizardry) can now process 
10 seconds of video from an HD source at 30fps and isolate motion 
areas of a particular size in a fraction of a second on a 700MHz 
Raspberry Pi.

:-)

Impressive !!!

Thanks!

My bug mentioned above may not actually be a bug, but a misunderstanding 
by me in how to pull values from pointers.  It's listed at https://github.com/dockimbel/Red/issues/496

In Red/System:

p: declare int-ptr! 				;; pointer 

i: 1                                                             
             ;; integer

p: :i						;; set p to address of i
print as integer! p				;; prints the address of p

      ;; the cast (as integer!) is to allow print to treat the value as
						;; an intteger
print p/value					;;  prints the value of i
						;; no cast needed as i is already an integer!
print p/1					;; equivalent to print p/value

Hope this helps.

I should have that as a quick reference card on my wall. :-)

Congrats, Bo

kaj, can you help me get R3 sources compiling?

or anyone else... in fact.

oh... sorry... wrong group!  what heresy!

Well done Bo! Yes those pointers and memory retrieving can be tricky, 
you can actually retrieve values from outside your boundaries, negative 
or too big, no problem.

In the meantime, appreciating all thee help really, I cannot still 
make choclats from the routine and #system* examples given. Kaj's 
from friday and Docs example from 11 may and explanation from Sat 
5:11/13. 

I now understand that the way I did things the process includes my 
Red/System source into my Red code and than compiling starts on the 
whole thing leading to the error I get. What my intention is, is 
not done, namely leaving Red/System code to be Red/System code and 
place this within the Red/System code generated from the Red compilation.

What I think I also understand is that in order for the Red compilation 
to know a function is not found in the Red source because it is not 
know at that time, because it is defined in the Red/System source 
there should be some action as to make it known. That the blancs 
will be filled in at a later stage.

So first I include a reds source in my Red program. 
#system-global [#include random-taocp.reds
;-- and now this?
#export [random-taocp/ran_start
random-taocp/ran_arr_next] ;-- + all my functions needed
] ;-- and close the block of system-global

In this Red/System code i use a context and functions within that 
context.

I want to use a function from the Red/System code so I make a ROUTINE 
in my red source and from this routine I call my Red/System function

get-random: routine [n [integer!] return: [integer!]][ random-taocp/ran_arr_next 
] ;-- don't need the input here strictly speeking
Is this in the right direction now? Thanks.

Not so easy. I'll have to resort to building a really simple example 
and try making that work.