World: r3wp

Agree.

And that is what it does, right? So no problem there?

back.  ok it only took like 35 redial attempts to get through the 
Illinois unemployment claims service this week - unbelievable.

Ok, let me check it out

Doc, I'm testing to see if a word behaves like a lit-word.

That is all my function does.

BrianH, it doesn't break.  My function is not a replacement for lit-word? 
function.

Nice to hear. Interestingly enough, you can write code in R3 without 
lit-word!, get-word! or set-word! values in the code. Not R2 though.

Doc, the reason in the example above that mine returned true was 
because it matched the error.  But that is what I want because it 
still indicates that the word behaved in a manner of a lit-word.

That is why the function is called as-lit-word.  I changed it yesterday 
to get rid of this idea that it is matching a lit-word.

Just add one function:


quote: func [
	"Returns the value passed to it without evaluation."
	:value [any-type!]
] [
	:value
]


And you can pretend that there are no lit-word!, get-word! or set-word! 
types. It needs R3's get-word! parameter semantics though.

(sorry for the formatting of that last message)

I'll look into that Brian.  I don't do much with R3 right now.

Since were talking about R3, do you really need a true? function?

BrianH, what exactly does the :value do in function header? What 
is passed?

isn't make logic! enough?

Yes, you need TRUE?. Make logic! isn't the same thing.

Tell me how they are different.

looking at TRUE?, it seems to have been added for readability. I 
missed it sometimes in R2.

>> make logic! 0
== false
>> true? 0
== true

I used make logic! mostely for the TRUE? effect in R2.

I use TRUE?. That was copied from R2.

Yeah but I don't need True? in that case if I have make logic!

BrianH, interesting. Why is there difference? (sorry for all the 
questions)

it was copied from r2?

make logic! works like C code.

I've backported most of R3 to R2.

I guess, I see the need for true? to be extremely limited.

I only bring it up because these are things I'm concerned about in 
R3.

TRUE? is very useful in case of PICK.

make logic! works in pick also

Paul, you have answered Henrik's question: make logic! works like 
C code, returning true when C would. TRUE? returns true when REBOL 
would treat it as true, not C. TRUE? is useful for AND, OR and XOR 
as well.

It was Carl's function, and he *needs* it for his code, so TRUE? 
will definitely be a mezzanine, not a library function.

So in R3, zero is true and other than zero is false? I remember something 
about this. Why was it made this way?

Because 0 being false only makes sense for languages without a boolean 
type (logic! in REBOL).

I think TRUE? provides equivalent evaluation to TRUE or FALSE in 
the case for IF and EITHER. Often you won't need to convert some 
type to logic! in order to evaluate it with IF or EITHER, but TRUE? 
allows you to display what IF and EITHER would evaluate to and it's 
necessary for PICK. I did not know it was different from make logic!, 
but to me it this difference just makes TRUE? more valid and important 
in general.

So essentially true? only reports false when it meets a an actual 
false.

Also with NONE, which is where I find it to be important.

correct

which makes it slightly different from FOUND?

Henrik: "BrianH, what exactly does the :value do in function header? 
What is passed?"


What is passed in R3 is the argument, completely unevaluated. So 
you can write this:
    set quote a get/any quote b
instead of this:
    a: :b

What does this give in R3?

>> true? 1

Geomol, true.

John, any value passed that is not none or false will give true in 
R3 the way I understand it.

Ah, then I was wrong in my assumption above.

It's a departure from C way.  If you want the C way then use make 
logic!

makes sense now ... I think. ;-)

>> source true?
true?: make function! [[
    {Returns true! if an expression can be used as true.}
    val

][
not not :val
]
]

Sorry for crappy formatting.

I agree with Brian, I think it is more aligned with how REBOL operates 
with logic.

Paul, in R2 and R1 as well. The code is exactly the same.