problems creating a path

I am trying to call a function with certain refinements present or not present, depending on user switches. This is one example that gives me what I want: files?: true join 'my-func/test either files? ['files][[]] ;== my-func/test/files files?: false join 'my-func/test either files? ['files][[]] ;== my-func/test That joins onto the lit-path! 'my-func/test successfully or leaves it alone. But this example is difficult to make work, because all the refinements of the path are optional, so the path starts as only a single word!: files?: true folders?: false to-path reduce ['my-func either files? ['files][[]] either folders? ['folders][[]]] ;== my-func/files/[] How to get rid of the brackets? I tried also: to-path reduce [to-lit-path 'my-func either files? ['files][[]] either folders? ['folders][[]]] ;** Script Error: Invalid argument: 'my-func ;** Where: to-path ;** Near: to path! :value join to-lit-path 'my-func [either files? ['files][[]] either folders? ['folders][[]]] ;== my-func/files/[] So using a block for the second argument is not going to work. (Anybody know a way?) Finally I went back to how it was working to start with: join join to-path 'my-func either files? ['files][[]] either folders? ['folders][[]] ;== my-func/files It seems less nice, but it works. Anton Dale Rolls.

Hi Anton, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anton" <[antonr--iinet--net--au]> To: "rebol-list" <[rebol-list--rebol--com]> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 4:20 PM Subject: [REBOL] problems creating a path

> I am trying to call a function with certain > refinements present or not present, depending on > [rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, without the quotes.

Hi Anton,

> How to get rid of the brackets?

Thanks, Romano. That's just what I was looking for. Anton.

Thanks Ladislav, these functions are a bit more complicated than what I want, but they might be useful for something else, so I'll keep it in mind. Anton.

Actually, I couldn't quite use 'pick, unless I converted the values to logic!s, which went above a threshold of ease-of-use for me.

> > How to get rid of the brackets? > compose could help > Ciao > Romano

Well my only suggestion was along the lines of treating your refinements as data and introducing a loop and then I got carried away... ; --- 8< --------------------------------------- ; ; Our list of refinements. ; Might be good to add labels :) ; refinements: [ show-folders show-files show-images absolute-paths details ] ; ; Our simulated function. ; funcspec: copy refinements forall funcspec [change funcspec to refinement! funcspec/1] traverse: func head funcspec compose/deep [ reduce [(:refinements)] ] ; ; A generated layout of checkboxes. ; Each with a special refinement facet. ; layout-spec: copy [ style rcheck check [redisplay] across label "path: " txtPath: text 400 return label "result: " txtResult: text 400 return ] foreach refinement refinements [ append layout-spec compose/deep [ label 100 (join to-string refinement ":") rcheck with [ refinement: (to lit-word! :refinement) ] return ] ] ; ; Computes the path based on the checkboxes found in pane. ; I suggest that this bit is fairly compact while retaining ; the flexibility of adding refinements later. And it does not ; add any new words except the facet refinement which ; I would say is data storage :) function-path?: func [ pane [block!] /local p fld ] [ p: to path! 'traverse foreach face pane [ if all [ in face 'refinement face/data ] [append p face/refinement] ] :p ] ; ; A function to update the display. ; Assuming our layout is the first in the pane. ; redisplay: has [path] [ path: function-path? layout-face/pane txtPath/text: mold path txtResult/text: mold do reduce [function-path? layout-face/pane] show layout-face ] ; ; View the layout. ; view layout-face: layout layout-spec ; ---8<--------------------------------------- Regards, Brett.

Carried away indeed! Do I detect humour? Anton.

Hi anton

> I passed through some other alternatives, but this way > seems the best. I was looking for a way that does not > use any extra words, has a small code size, and is easy > to add new refinements. > By chance is there anyone who can do better? I challenge you! > I busted my head on this for some hours.

Romano, I strongly agree. My recent and past difficulties forming paths lead me to conclude that: "there must be a better way". If pick accepted none for its index argument that would really help, in this situation, although I don't think it is all that inconsistent right now. Well, I got to thinking, a small function to convert none values to unset! and pass through others could help. f: func [val][either val [val][]] to-path compose [hello (f all [none 'there])] ;== hello ; (replace the none with true/false etc.) ('f is not a very good name for it, but I'd want it to be short). Anton.

After some more thought I think I'd like to use this more: flag-val: func [flag val][either flag [val][]] to-path compose [hello (flag-val none 'there) (flag-val true 'someone)] ;== hello/someone Anton.