World: r3wp

first find series val?

i could maybe understand third... not first or second :)

You're right. First is nonsensical and second could use 'select. 
I just checked my code and it is in fact 'index? not first I've had 
to code like this. ;)

ah well.... :-) but I think there is a point in it, don't you? or 
maybe there ought to be some conventions, like: "Never change a block 
to a none!" or things like that

henrik: i added your wish to rambo. will probably be implemented.

thanks

Henrik: your wish looks unnatural, I prefer the following:

    default [index? find [a b c] 'd] [none]


the Default function is available and it has been in Rambo for quite 
some time

Otoh, your example can be written using Attempt too as follows:

    attempt [index? find [a b c] 'd]

Re default: (a user poll) I wonder whether it is useful to have it 
like: 


    default [trial code here] 'error-variable [print disarm error-variable]

or in a shorter form like:

    default [trial code here] [print disarm error]


, in the last case the error variable will always be 'error, which 
will be local to the error handling block, i.e. if you want any other 
variable you have to explicitly assign the value of the 'error variable 
to it

my suggestion: if the arg is a block, use 'error. if it's a function, 
assume it has one argument and pass it the error. so i can write 
default [trial code] func [myerr] [print disarm myerr] if i really 
need to.

anyway, index? none returning none doesn't seem bad to me. will probably 
be faster than using attempt or default.

Carl did similar with 'remove, for failing "remove find". but may 
be better for error-checking to be explicit (rest of code expects 
dealing only with numbers, better bail out immediate.

about default, i prefer implicit error-var too. if not, at least 
put the error-var first. maybe together with an assignment?
 default 'var [index? find [a b c] 'd] [none] 
instead of
 var: default [index? find [a b c] 'd] [none]
but i prefer the second (old) version.

The problem I see is that it complicates debugging.

>> 1 + index? find "abc" "e"

** Script Error: index? expected series argument of type: series 
port
** Near: 1 + index? find "abc"

>> 1 + attempt[index? find "abc" "e"]
** Script Error: Cannot use add on none! value
** Near: 1 + attempt [index? find "abc" "e"]

So if INDEX? returns none the error of not finding the element propagates 
to the add function. In a longer expression the programmer will start 
debuging int the wrong place.

(thats what i wanted to say too. just wrong wording. should be "but 
<no-none> may be better for error-checking .."

compare:

1 + index? any [find "abc" "e" #]

to:

1 + any [index? find "abc" "e" 0]

maybe index? should directly return zero.

But then you need to have a test against zero in order to catch a 
not found result.

but when you found nothing, there is no index. 0 would give syntactically 
valid results, letting the rest of the program run. just doing wrong 
things. none will at least led to trapping it.

thinking about it, when using series instead of indices, it bails 
out on using, not immediate too. maybe index? pasing none is k.

The problem with returning zero is that is an attempt to handle implcitely 
something that should be explicit, that is error catching.

I vote to leave it like it is.  It makes the most sense to have Index? 
fail on a non-series value.  I've found ANY to be a very handy function 
for handling things like that.  I initially just used it with EITHER 
and IF but its starting to show up in a lot of places in my code 
because it is just nice and concise. ;-)

is not finding a value an error? i think it isn't.

ammon: see above, if you use ANY you get 1 which is hardly what you 
want.

Not finding a value is not necesarily and error, that the reason 
find returns NONE. But it is an error to request the index of none.

Changing the semantics of INDEX? NONE is what is at stake.

That is true but that just means that it may not be the way you want 
to handle it.  I think Ladislav is correct here.  In some situations 
it may not be bad to continue with a bad index value but I think 
the majority of the time then you need to cancel what you are doing 
if the index is not available, hence an error.

Jaime, Agreed!

Jaime: for INDEX? used alone, that may be true. But asking the position 
of a value in a series and asking the index of a value in a series 
are, IMHO, the same question.

pos: find series value

idx: index? find series value

so if the former should not cause an error, neither should the latter.

but then give 'none, not 0.

That sounds better. NONE = INDEX? NONE

But then you run right back into the problem of having to check for 
a NONE value on the index variable because the code using it is undoubtedly 
going to fail on NONE because it is expecting a Number.  Any way 
you look at it you are going to end up needing to check for that 
NONE value.

Checking for a none value is easy with the ANY native. It's just 
like using COALESCE in SQL.

Yes, there are many ways to check for NONE and most of them are easy 
I'm just not sure how much value it would actually add to have Index? 
return NONE when passed a NONE value.

as gabriele says, we have the same problem with series. can be none 
too and fail then.

and Henrik likes better flow. i guess something like
 if index? find data value [ .. ]
or 
 any[ index? find data value  default ]

since i rarely use index when i can use series, i don't know how 
important thatis.

The only time I've found it useful to use index is when using values 
in one series as a key to values in another series. Kind of rare 
when you have select/skip, but sometimes you don't want to modify 
the data series. All right, since RAMBO says that there are problems 
with select/skip right now, maybe not so rare.

IIRC that problems relate to select/skip on strings, which is not 
very common anyway.

The reply said the bug applies to blocks too.

Using Select/Skip on a String! doesn't behave in a manner consistant 
with the way that it acts on a Block! which leads to a state where 
it freezes the REBOL Interpreter.

iOops, ok, i cant read.. yes, you are right.

(no freeze, but wrong result with blocks, ok, ok.. )

For 8bit character strings I often prefer using a 256 byte binary 
lookup string indexed by the integer equivalent of the relevant character.