World: r3wp
[Core] Discuss core issues
older newer | first last |
Graham 30-Sep-2009 [14799] | copy/part what-dir 3 is shorter |
BrianH 30-Sep-2009 [14800] | On Windows: read %// |
Graham 30-Sep-2009 [14801x2] | sorry ... I meant I want %/c/ ... and not read the directory |
ie. want the path | |
BrianH 30-Sep-2009 [14803x2] | Then your second method is best, unless you are on a UNC path, then try this: copy/part find/tail next what-dir "/" |
Sorry, this: rootdir: copy/part rootdir: what-dir find/tail next rootdir "/" | |
Sunanda 30-Sep-2009 [14805] | Does this do it? clean-path %// |
BrianH 30-Sep-2009 [14806x3] | It should. It does on R3. Let me try it on R2. |
Yup. On R3 it's slower though, sincee clean-path is mezz. | |
On R3 the fastest way is this: head clear find/tail next what-dir "/" | |
Graham 30-Sep-2009 [14809x2] | http://rebol.wik.is/Cheyenne/Upload-file.rsp |
don't think I'll need UNC path support :) | |
BrianH 30-Sep-2009 [14811] | I use it a lot :) |
Graham 30-Sep-2009 [14812] | on a web server? |
BrianH 30-Sep-2009 [14813] | Nope - remote file manipulation. UNC paths are for Windows shares, not web shares. |
Henrik 4-Oct-2009 [14814] | Ratio is giving me good opportunities to sharpen my skills. While writing a post, I bumped into this: http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=substr.r What do you think? :-) |
Dockimbel 4-Oct-2009 [14815] | From the script header: Purpose: "Working around string series"...I think that this is shooting yourself in the foot. |
Graham 8-Oct-2009 [14816] | Don't you think this is a little inconsistent? >> a: "" == "" >> a/1 == none >> last a ** Script Error: Out of range or past end ** Near: last a >> |
Dockimbel 8-Oct-2009 [14817] | IIRC, Carl explained (at least) once that this behaviour is different on purpose. Using path notation with an index value or PICK should return NONE while using the prefix notation FIRST, SECOND,...LAST should return an error. So you have the choice to either silently handle missing values in series or raise an error!. |
BrianH 8-Oct-2009 [14818x2] | In R3 it is consistent. |
>> a: "" == "" >> a/1 == none >> last a == none | |
Will 15-Oct-2009 [14820x2] | SYSTEM/SCHEMES/FTP/PASS is a none of value: none set-net ['abc] ? system/schemes/ftp/pass SYSTEM/SCHEMES/FTP/PASS is a string of value: "abc" |
the documentation says "The first value is your email address and it is used when sending email and connecting to FTP. This value is stored in the REBOL system object at: SYSTEM/USER/EMAIL". I don't think it's a good idea that the ftp password will be set to the email address as well, "used when connecting to FTP" maybe it should set the user instead | |
Graham 16-Oct-2009 [14822] | that's the way it used to be done |
Gabriele 16-Oct-2009 [14823] | the convention for anonymous FTP is to provide "anonymous" as the user and the email address as the password. |
Maxim 17-Oct-2009 [14824x6] | I am having a very hard time build a low-level function which reduces only bound words. |
the bound? function is useless, it returns the global context when it hits a new word, cause it defines the word as it scans it. | |
value? doesn't see the word, only its label, which in parse rules collides heavily with standard rules. | |
any one can give me ideas? | |
unset? always returns false, cause it pretty much only matches non-returning functions like print, but you have to evaluate them to know, so its useless again. | |
so far this seems to be impossible to resolve in R2 >:-( | |
Steeve 17-Oct-2009 [14830] | can you give an example of the expected result ? |
Maxim 17-Oct-2009 [14831x2] | false == (some magic trick) first load "[any]" true == (same magic trick) first append [] in system/words 'any the first is just an unbound word, using the string just makes this explicit beyond doubt. the second is the actual word func. added to a block. |
or are all words bound to the global context by default, making this impossible... as I think. | |
Steeve 17-Oct-2009 [14833] | you mea, you want to construct a block with ANY unbound to a context ? |
Maxim 17-Oct-2009 [14834] | maybe I can just do this : same? bound? first load "[any]" system/words and assume I'm not actually using global words in my blocks... |
Steeve 17-Oct-2009 [14835x2] | >> value? first to-block "any" == false |
in that exemple, ANY is not bound | |
Maxim 17-Oct-2009 [14837] | let me check something... it might add to the confusion :-) |
Steeve 17-Oct-2009 [14838x2] | to-block, do like LOAD, except it doesn't bound the words in the global context |
>> do probe to-block "1 + 1" [1 + 1] ** Script Error: + word has no context ** Near: 1 + 1 | |
Maxim 17-Oct-2009 [14840x2] | >> value? first to-block "[any {a}]" == true |
this is whacky | |
Steeve 17-Oct-2009 [14842x2] | lol |
>> value? first to-block "any {a}" == false | |
Maxim 17-Oct-2009 [14844] | I know... very broken. |
Steeve 17-Oct-2009 [14845] | No, you must remove the brackets |
Maxim 17-Oct-2009 [14846x2] | but my data HAS inner blocks. |
this is just plain dumb. | |
Pekr 17-Oct-2009 [14848] | the result is of course correct .. |
older newer | first last |