World: r3wp
[RAMBO] The REBOL bug and enhancement database
older newer | first last |
Maxim 22-Aug-2009 [3152] | always someone to prove another wrong... ;-) |
Gregg 23-Aug-2009 [3153] | An excellent solution, but you still can't wait on a date!. :-) |
Oldes 23-Aug-2009 [3154] | I agree, that it should be supported directly, so is there the ticket already? |
Graham 23-Aug-2009 [3155x2] | what happens if someone changes the clock while you're waiting on a date! ? |
what should? | |
PeterWood 23-Aug-2009 [3157x2] | What happens if someone changes the machine's clock while you wating for a length of time ? |
you -> you're | |
Gabriele 24-Aug-2009 [3159] | graham, the only solution to that would be to wait, say, 10 seconds at a time, and check. but it really depends on the application... |
btiffin 24-Aug-2009 [3160] | re; wait till time, isn't that add multiply subtract then/date now/date 86400 subtract then/time now/time then - now * seconds per day + delta hours? Negative time! possible, which it seems wait takes as zero anyway. |
Gabriele 25-Aug-2009 [3161x2] | btiffin, just use difference now then |
(or difference now/precise then if necessary) | |
btiffin 25-Aug-2009 [3163] | Thanks Gabriele; I knew there was a more concise method of getting at time! from date arithmetic, but I got sidetracked when the google search wanted to show me COBOL data arithmetic. ;) Can't ever know enough COBOL, err, aaah, REBOL. |
Nicolas 1-Mar-2010 [3164x2] | This hangs. |
in R3 | |
BrianH 1-Mar-2010 [3166] | This? |
Nicolas 1-Mar-2010 [3167] | p: make op! [[n m] [n * m]] 3 p 4 |
BrianH 1-Mar-2010 [3168x2] | Wrong group, but good to know. MAKE op! clearly needs to do more parameter checking. CureCode it. |
There's no reason to expect that to work, btw. An error should be thrown by MAKE. | |
Nicolas 1-Mar-2010 [3170] | why? |
BrianH 1-Mar-2010 [3171] | Because ops aren't mezzanines - they redirect to other functions. |
Nicolas 1-Mar-2010 [3172x2] | if not divisible-by-any? n primes if n is-not-divisible-by-any primes |
if they could be made we could use this kind of grammar | |
BrianH 1-Mar-2010 [3174x2] | There is no known spec argument for MAKE op! that is supposed work. You're spposed to use the OP function. |
User-defined ops are a planned feature, not a currently working feature. | |
Nicolas 1-Mar-2010 [3176x2] | Thanks |
How many people are in here? | |
BrianH 1-Mar-2010 [3178] | It's not a bad idea though. Still, CureCode that code you posted above. It's a serious bug that MAKE doesn't trigger an error there. |
Gabriele 30-Oct-2010 [3179] | Anybody knows what's this about? http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/rambo.r?id=-4786& |
Ladislav 30-Oct-2010 [3180] | Well, I do not think so... |
Henrik 30-Oct-2010 [3181] | sounds like something for a private project? |
GrahamC 30-Oct-2010 [3182] | Product is command yet he talks about clicking on icons .... so he's confused! |
Gabriele 31-Oct-2010 [3183] | I'd guess that if it's a product written in REBOL, the author is likely to hang out here... :-) I'm going to leave it there for a couple days in case anyone needs it, then i'll delete or dismiss it. |
GrahamC 31-Oct-2010 [3184] | It's not a RT product .. so I'd delete it |
Gabriele 31-Oct-2010 [3185] | do you know it's not a RT product? |
GrahamC 31-Oct-2010 [3186x2] | with 99.9999% certainty |
as cmd is a non gui product | |
Gabriele 31-Oct-2010 [3188] | that does not seem a lot of evidence to me... :) |
GrahamC 31-Oct-2010 [3189] | don't you have the email of the poster? |
Gabriele 31-Oct-2010 [3190] | I do, but that's only useful to the author of the program in question, no? |
Geomol 3-May-2011 [3191] | Found a couple RAMBO tickets dated back to 13-May-2006 related to the double evaluation of lit-words: http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/rambo.r?id=4100& http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/rambo.r?id=4101& The tickets suggest, USE might be the problem, but isn't it SAME? that's the problem here? See the following R2 code: >> a: first ['word] == 'word >> b: 'word == word >> strict-equal? a b == true >> strict-equal? :a :b == false >> same? a b == true >> same? :a :b == true I would expect all 4 to return false, but with double evaluation of lit-words, the last should still be false. |
BrianH 3-May-2011 [3192x4] | Given that lit-words are supposed to be active values, all but the last make sense. |
Don't forget R2's bugs related to double evaluation of words, which are definitely not supposed to be active values. | |
Never mind, http://issue.cc/r3/1434is outdated: 2.7.8 doesn't have the double evaluation bug for words anymore. I wonder when that was fixed? | |
Forget it, it does, just ran some test code. | |
onetom 3-May-2011 [3196] | im happy to see u guys cleaning up such old tickets. u keep the hope alive that rebol won't die :) |
MaxV 6-May-2011 [3197] | Rebol will never die: https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ELKDZn84LgDbQJJ4Fvo4Aw?feat=directlink |
Maxim 6-May-2011 [3198] | hahahahahah |
Geomol 6-May-2011 [3199] | :-D Actually, REBOL sounds a bit like a cartoon superhero. |
onetom 6-May-2011 [3200] | i want from that crack too, maxv! ;D |
sqlab 9-May-2011 [3201] | *.rip requiescat in pace ? |
older newer | first last |