World: r3wp
[Core] Discuss core issues
older newer | first last |
[unknown: 5] 19-Feb-2009 [12448x2] | TomBon, keep in mind that you can create the spec for an object and use it as your template as well. |
>> blk: [a: 1 b: 2] == [a: 1 b: 2] >> obj: context blk >> obj/a == 1 >> obj/b == 2 | |
Graham 19-Feb-2009 [12450] | If you look at the source for 'function, you will see that the parameters are just 2 blocks .... |
TomBon 19-Feb-2009 [12451] | yes but the objects also containing functions and nested objects etc. graham approach is very compatible with the current codebase I have so far but thx for reminding me with this paul. |
[unknown: 5] 19-Feb-2009 [12452] | Your welcome TomBon, glad to see that you got the problem resolved. |
[unknown: 5] 21-Feb-2009 [12453] | What part of this is a bug: >> val: 'blah == blah >> type? val == word! >> lit-word? val == false >> help val VAL is a word of value: blah >> val: to-lit-word val == 'blah >> type? val == word! >> lit-word? val == false >> help val VAL is a lit-word of value: 'blah |
Anton 21-Feb-2009 [12454] | Lit-words reduce to words pretty easily, so try this instead: type? :val |
[unknown: 5] 21-Feb-2009 [12455x4] | Yeah I actually realized that after I posted it. |
What was confusing me is assignment and how it works with lit-word | |
Consider the following: >> a: 'test == test >> lit-word? :a == false >> a: to-lit-word 'test == 'test >> lit-word? :a == true | |
Seems to me that the assignment aspect is still buggy. i would expect to get lit-word? true on the first call in that example. | |
Izkata 21-Feb-2009 [12459] | The way I see it: In your second post, 'test is a lit-word! being evaulated to a word! before assignment to 'a, in the first part In the second part, the lit-word! 'test is being evaluated to a word!, passed into the function to-lit-word, then the lit-word is assigned to 'a In the first post, why "type? val" returns word! on a lit-word!, I see as the same as this - the type is a subset: >> X: %One == %One >> type? X == file! >> series? X == true |
[unknown: 5] 21-Feb-2009 [12460x2] | It just seems inconsistent to me but I suppose it is needed to be this way to deal with the manner in which REBOL operates. For example, consider its inconsistency in this regard: >> string? "this" == true >> file? %file == true >> lit-word? 'this == false |
Also consider this: >> a: first ['test] == 'test >> lit-word? :a == true >> | |
Izkata 21-Feb-2009 [12462] | It's always felt consistent to me - the context is being evaluated, and lit-word!s reduce to word!s, word!s reduce to functions and values, while other datatypes reduce to themselves: >> X: [{One} 'Two] == ["One" 'Two] >> ? X/1 ? X/2 X/1 is a string of value: "One" X/2 is a lit-word of value: 'Two >> X: reduce X ;Here is where typing it in on the terminal evaluates to == ["One" Two] >> ? X/1 ? X/2 X/1 is a string of value: "One" X/2 is a word of value: Two >> X: reduce X ** Script Error: Two has no value ** Near: Two ...and the reasoning behind lit-word!/word! acting differently is that those are special datatypes where other values can be bound to them |
[unknown: 5] 21-Feb-2009 [12463x2] | My point is that I don't see why the to-lit-word isn't implied when performing assignment. Such as a: 'test |
BTW, it is more efficient to assign a lit-word with a: first ['test] then it is to use a: to-lit-word 'test. | |
Janko 21-Feb-2009 [12465x3] | (I participatted in this discussion already one time and it also seems consistent to me) |
Paul: I think Brian or Henrik told that time that 'word is "active" something and rebol reduces it when encounters it in the same way as it would auto-reduce function a: get-two not assign it to a (at least that was my compilation of it that time :) ) | |
and we all know that blocs don't get evaluated / reduced by itself so [ word ] stays [ word ] even fi word is undefined or func or anything so [ 'word ] also stays [ 'word ] | |
[unknown: 5] 21-Feb-2009 [12468x2] | That makes no sense to me Janko. By the way it was me and Henrik that both thought it was inconsistent. |
Janko, this seems consistent to you: >> lit-word? 'test == false | |
Janko 21-Feb-2009 [12470] | it maybe seems odd at first sight, but consistent in the same way as this: >> make-two: does [ 2 ] >> make-two == 2 >> function? make-two == false |
Rebolek 21-Feb-2009 [12471] | Paul, it is consinstent: read first word - it's >lit-word?< evaluate it - it's a function that takes one argument read second word (first and only argument for that function) - it's >'test< evaluate it - lit-word! evaulates to word! pass it to the function - word! is passed, not lit-word! |
[unknown: 5] 21-Feb-2009 [12472] | Ok, if everyone else thinks so then this is one of those issues where its only me that thinks it isn't. As long as newbies GET IT when learning REBOL that is what matters. |
Janko 21-Feb-2009 [12473x2] | I am not so exp. rebol user as you but where do you use lit words as they are.. I used them only to pass words (reduced lit-words) basically so far ... in blocks never write [ 'some 'random 'words ] but [ some random words ] as they don't get evaled anyway |
Paul: maybe you have a different usage pattern for them, so this behaviour that goes on looks odd/wrong when used that way? | |
[unknown: 5] 21-Feb-2009 [12475x4] | yes Janko but that can be risking if they do get evaluated. consider this [delete %/c/bootmgr] |
See I read the documentation on lit-word? and it states: Returns TRUE for lit-word values. | |
But you guys tell me that 'test is not a lit-word value. | |
That is what doesn't make sense to me. | |
Janko 21-Feb-2009 [12479x2] | yes, I get this delete example :) good point ,... I would have to look in what manner I used blocks with "random" words (if I did) to see what could happen.. I did some when I was playing with dialects.. and to store data in [ key "value" ] manner |
is make-two a function ? it is but when you write it it gets evaled to 2 and if you write >>function? make-two<< you get false , same here it is but it get's evaled to word | |
[unknown: 5] 21-Feb-2009 [12481x2] | But 'test is a value - not a function. It is the end value as I call it. In other words it doesn't evaluate. |
words can evalute but lit words don't. | |
Rebolek 21-Feb-2009 [12483] | no, lit words evaluate to words |
[unknown: 5] 21-Feb-2009 [12484x4] | I know it does which is why I believe that is inconsistent. |
I currently get this: type? 'test ==word! I think it would be more consistent to get this: type? 'test ==lit-word! | |
Consider this link by Brett: http://www.codeconscious.com/rebol/articles/rebol-concepts.html It says the following: 'age This textual form is recognised in rebol as the lit-word! datatype. | |
See that isn't entirely true - only half true. Consider: >> lit-word? 'age == false | |
Rebolek 21-Feb-2009 [12488] | But this is purpose of lit-word! With your behaviour, >> reduce ['a] ; would return == ['a] |
[unknown: 5] 21-Feb-2009 [12489x3] | But that makes sense to me. |
That is why I say that it is only half true to say that it evaluates to a lit-word. | |
It does sometimes but not all the time. | |
Rebolek 21-Feb-2009 [12492x2] | No, it evaluates to word!, not lit-word! |
Always | |
[unknown: 5] 21-Feb-2009 [12494] | To me that is the inconsistency. |
Rebolek 21-Feb-2009 [12495] | Paul, with your behaviour, how would you write this code?: >> a: 3 == 3 >> reduce ['a a] == [a 3] |
[unknown: 5] 21-Feb-2009 [12496x2] | to me it should be ['a 3] |
But I know that breaks how REBOL works. | |
older newer | first last |