World: r3wp
[Core] Discuss core issues
older newer | first last |
Anton 21-Dec-2008 [11800] | Yep, Gabriele got it. |
BrianH 21-Dec-2008 [11801] | Note that his solution requires the known word parameter, but not the function context parameter. This means that it is more easy to call from "inside" the function where you can specify a known word instead of having to find one. The no-parameter solution is still up in the air :) |
Anton 21-Dec-2008 [11802x5] | Just make your own function generator. You can basically inline clear-locals into the end of the function body. |
There may be some tricky issues to take care of. Refer to Ladislav's documents where he does this kind of thing. | |
Ahh - tricky issue will be how to avoid upsetting the return value. Now it looks hard again. | |
No, it should be easy, just use ALSO with the whole body block. | |
No, using ALSO isn't so straighforward - it's hard again. :) | |
Steeve 21-Dec-2008 [11807x2] | do you know why it's returning false ? >> o: context [b: 1] >> same? o bind? in o 'b == false |
so currently we have 2 distinct objects with same shared properties | |
[unknown: 5] 21-Dec-2008 [11809] | correct. |
Steeve 21-Dec-2008 [11810] | in R3 it's the same object, so i assume it's a bug in R2 |
[unknown: 5] 21-Dec-2008 [11811x2] | No, I think it goes back to what were discussing in the Answers group. |
Read in the Anwers group where we were discussing the affect of 'self on the contexts | |
Steeve 21-Dec-2008 [11813] | hum i don't see the relation |
Sunanda 21-Dec-2008 [11814] | Answers (which was intended for responses to challenges in the Puzzles group) is not [web-public], so half this discussion is hidden from anyone reading just the web archive. It seems an important technique is under discussion. Could some one summarise the state of the art, and continue the discussion here? Thanks! |
[unknown: 5] 21-Dec-2008 [11815] | Steeve, I guess what I'm saying is that SELF itself becomes a new value thus same? would report false. |
Steeve 21-Dec-2008 [11816x2] | i see but i'm just asking how it's possible, same? should check the inner address of the objects. if they share the same block! of propertie values it should remain equal, no ? |
seems there is more indirect links between an object and his properties | |
[unknown: 5] 21-Dec-2008 [11818x2] | But it is checking values. |
Self has to be evaluated in that sense to see what value it is in each context. | |
Steeve 21-Dec-2008 [11820x2] | i don't think it's checking values, we have the proof now |
2 distinct objects, so that same values in the same memory location are not taking in account | |
[unknown: 5] 21-Dec-2008 [11822] | The description of same? is this: Returns TRUE if the values are identical. if it isn't checking values in each context then how do you believe it would be checking the values? |
Steeve 21-Dec-2008 [11823] | identical means the inner pointers (in memory) are the same |
[unknown: 5] 21-Dec-2008 [11824] | I'm not sure how you can see that the self of one could be the same value as a self of another? |
Steeve 21-Dec-2008 [11825] | in R3 they do |
[unknown: 5] 21-Dec-2008 [11826] | I thought we were talking about R2. Sorry I got confused. I don't know regarding R3. That indeed could be the case. |
Steeve 21-Dec-2008 [11827x2] | i said previously that in R3 (comparing to R2) the bind? function returns the same object, not a different one. |
i used the first alpha release | |
[unknown: 5] 21-Dec-2008 [11829] | I'll yield to those that have used the Alpha a bit more as I really couldn't speculate at this point even. |
Anton 21-Dec-2008 [11830x2] | Steeve, it does look odd, like a bug. |
These are ok. >> same? o do bind [self] o == true >> same? o do bind [self] in o 'b == true | |
[unknown: 5] 21-Dec-2008 [11832] | If you think it is a bug Anton, then you should report it to Rambo assuming your talking about R2. |
Anton 21-Dec-2008 [11833] | I leave this honour to Steeve. :) |
Steeve 21-Dec-2008 [11834] | boring... |
Anton 21-Dec-2008 [11835] | There are no tickets that match a search for "bind?" in Rambo. |
Steeve 21-Dec-2008 [11836] | so you are the one who will fill the hole ;-) |
Anton 21-Dec-2008 [11837] | Aha! I like your style of humour! :) |
Steeve 21-Dec-2008 [11838] | especialy when we know that the word humour has a greek root meaning FLUID |
Gabriele 22-Dec-2008 [11839x2] | Steeve, o and the result of bind? are the same context but not the same object. this is an implementation detail of R2. |
I do not think this is a bug, and it may not be trivial to fix it if it was (which means, it'll never get fixed as Carl is not going to spend that much time on R2 for something not important) | |
Steeve 22-Dec-2008 [11841] | i agree Gab, for me, it's not a bug but a functionnality |
Anton 22-Dec-2008 [11842] | What use does it have ? |
Steeve 22-Dec-2008 [11843x5] | none for the moment... ;-) |
i | |
in R3 it would be usefull combined with the ability to expand an object | |
it would be something like an inheritance link | |
a dynamic one | |
[unknown: 5] 22-Dec-2008 [11848] | Sure it does - it allows Gabriele's function to work. |
Steeve 22-Dec-2008 [11849] | don't think it's related |
older newer | first last |