ZERO-INDEX-PATCH_alpha-001

ZERO-INDEX-PATCH_alpha-001 Everybody, First of all apologies for that humungous posting earlier but I couldn't think of an easier way to get it "out there" to everybody. A few things to note; 1. This "breaks" in lots of places, notably 'HELP and system/schemes network functionality. 2. Don't scream at me if something doesn't work. I posted this code 'cause as far as I can see this is what needs to be changed for zero indexing to work properly. Maybe there's more, If so and you find it all well & good, post your notification here including you solution / attempted solution. 3. if you only want to complain or criticise then don't bother wasting your time or mine, I'm only interested in proposed solutions and people who genuinely want to help. 4. /PATH notation doesn't work, can anybody help with a workaround solution? 5. This is hopefully intended to be a community solution and is NOT exclusively about Mark Dickson. If YOU can help Good! Take the project one step further ahead by all means, you've all got the source and ability to do so! 6. I promised my girlfriend Dawn a nice break this weekend so I can't look at this again until Monday. Hopefully other's will take up the challenge between now and then, it is a great challenge for a weekend Hack afterall. Cheers till Monday folks and apologies again if I clogged up your mail files. ABC it's easy as one, two, three Mark Dickson

Wo,wo,wo! Hold up here, didn't he simply ask for an index? Does it really take that much to add the simple functionality wich would allow access to all block! via block-name[index] just like most other programming languages? It doesn't seem to me that it would be that difficult, but then I am relitively new to programming(started with HTML 2 years ago, & slowly progressed from there), to add the ability to access block! via an index, to add this there is no need to changeany of the existing functions to use it, just add it let the user use it not the function! of rebol. Doesn't that make sense, or am I missunderstanding Cal? pick random/only [Thanks HTH]!! Ammon [Robbo1Mark--aol--com] wrote:

I might actually use them on occasion if they were packaged differently. I would prefer one of the below formats: * Packaged in an object like zip/pick, zip/index?, zip/skip, etc. --My favorite. * Prefixed names like zip-pick, zip-index?, zip-skip, etc. * Patch the system words, but just add a /zero indexing option. This way nothing breaks and you can still load in unsuspecting programs without problems. --Ryan PS: To say strictly that we should only use 0 based indexing would leave many problems suited for 1 based indexing having to do adjustments. And so it is vice versa. Being able to use the appropriate system for each instance the makes clear sense to me.

I agree with you Ryan that we should have optional indexing starting from and including base zero, PASCAL has this for array indexing, however as Jeff rightly points out, I've got too little time, resources, understanding etc. to really appreciate software architecture 8-) ; Yes he can be serupticiously rude but he's also ; funny so I like him! cheers, Mark Dickson In a message dated Fri, 6 Jul 2001 1:22:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Ryan Cole <[ryanc--iesco-dms--com]> writes: << I might actually use them on occasion if they were packaged differently. I would prefer one of the below formats: * Packaged in an object like zip/pick, zip/index?, zip/skip, etc. --My favorite. * Prefixed names like zip-pick, zip-index?, zip-skip, etc. * Patch the system words, but just add a /zero indexing option. This way nothing breaks and you can still load in unsuspecting programs without problems. --Ryan PS: To say strictly that we should only use 0 based indexing would leave many problems suited for 1 based indexing having to do adjustments. And so it is vice versa. Being able to use the appropriate system for each instance the makes clear sense to me.

And Re: [REBOL] (no subject) seemingly identical posting... Do you not have access to webspace of any kind? Personally, though I am on a DSL line, I'd rather not get too many copies of the same 150K script piling into my mailbox. But, more of an issue, there are a number of folks on this list using pay-by-the-minute dial-u lines. Ouch! I feel your pain. If you want to use the list for distribution, which is fine and we see tons of cool scripts here because of it, just send updated sections or a weblink or a reblink for files of this kind of size. My mailbox thanks you, I thank you. Sterling

Sterling, I've apologized seceral times already today for this, however I'm not too humble, therefore I sincerely apologize to you personally and to everybody else again. Sorry folks! Mark In a message dated Fri, 6 Jul 2001 1:45:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [sterling--rebol--com] writes: << And Re: [REBOL] (no subject) seemingly identical posting... Do you not have access to webspace of any kind? Personally, though I am on a DSL line, I'd rather not get too many copies of the same 150K script piling into my mailbox. But, more of an issue, there are a number of folks on this list using pay-by-the-minute dial-u lines. Ouch! I feel your pain. If you want to use the list for distribution, which is fine and we see tons of cool scripts here because of it, just send updated sections or a weblink or a reblink for files of this kind of size. My mailbox thanks you, I thank you. Sterling

Hi, Ryan, Ryan Cole wrote:

> I might actually use them on occasion if they were packaged > differently. >

> * Patch the system words, but just add a /zero indexing > option. This way nothing breaks and you can still load > in unsuspecting programs without problems. >

> PS: To say strictly that we should only use 0 based > indexing would leave many problems suited for 1 based > indexing having to do adjustments. And so it is vice > versa. Being able to use the appropriate system for each > instance the makes clear sense to me. >