r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[Core] Discuss core issues

Henrik
17-Sep-2005
[2044x3]
so it's not a true shortcut of AND and would fail if you were testing 
for FALSE
this also doesn't work:

>> (all [1 2 3 false]) and (all [1 2 3 true])
** Script Error: Cannot use and~ on none! value
** Near: (all [1 2 3 false]) and (all [1 2 3 true])
because ALL returns NONE instead of FALSE, since:

>> logic? none
== false
Graham
17-Sep-2005
[2047]
'all is used widely ... in rebol scripts
Henrik
17-Sep-2005
[2048]
so if there were to be a RAMBO entry, it would be because ALL doesn't 
return logic! values. the case would be the same for ANY. But there 
has to be a reason why it's made like this.
Graham
17-Sep-2005
[2049]
yeah, to frustrate newbies
Henrik
17-Sep-2005
[2050x2]
:-) testing with EITHER:

>> either false [1][2]
== 2
>> either true [1][2]
== 1
>> either none [1][2]
== 2

so it doesn't seem to have a reason to return NONE...
a whole lot of things would break if the return value was changed 
from NONE to FALSE. it would be easier to say that ALL is not a really 
true shortcut AND
Graham
17-Sep-2005
[2052]
I suggest we submit a RAMBO and wait to see what Carl says ...
Henrik
17-Sep-2005
[2053]
yep
Graham
17-Sep-2005
[2054x2]
done.
updated the wikibook as well.
Ashley
17-Sep-2005
[2056]
Something related that has always bugged me is to-logic:

	>> to-logic 'false
	== true
	>> to-logic "false"
	== true

of what use then is to-logic?
PeterWood
17-Sep-2005
[2057]
This ?

>> to-logic 1
== true
>> to-logic 0
== false
Gabriele
17-Sep-2005
[2058x4]
>> any [false]
== none
>> select [a 1 b 2] 'c
== none
see the pattern? :-)
i agree the help string should probably be clearer.
PhilB
18-Sep-2005
[2062]
How do send an email and cc a second email address 
I tried this

lv-header: make system/standard/email [
    to: [test1-:-somehost-:-com]
    cc: [test2-:-gmail-:-com]
]


send/header/subject [test1-:-somehost-:-com] "This is a test" lv-header 
"Test Subject"

but the email gets sent to the to address but not the cc address.
Graham
18-Sep-2005
[2063x4]
USAGE:

    SEND address message /only /header header-obj /attach files /subject 
    subj /show

DESCRIPTION:
     Send a message to an address (or block of addresses)
     SEND is a function value.

ARGUMENTS:

     address -- An address or block of addresses (Type: email block)

     message -- Text of message. First line is subject. (Type: any)

REFINEMENTS:
     /only -- Send only one message to multiple addresses
     /header -- Supply your own custom header
         header-obj -- The header to use (Type: object)
     /attach -- Attach file, files, or [.. [filename data]]

         files -- The files to attach to the message (Type: file block)
     /subject -- Set the subject of the message
         subj -- The subject line (Type: any)
     /show -- Show all recipients in the TO field
so, I guess


send/only/header  [    [test1-:-somehost-:-com][test2-:-gmail-:-com] ] "This 
is a test" lv-header "Test Subject"
I don't believe that 'send examines the header for cc and bcc fields.
yeah, it doesn't.  check source send
PhilB
18-Sep-2005
[2067]
So I have to provide all the addresses as the 2nd parameter ... an 
amalgamation of the To: CC: & BCC addresses .....
Graham
18-Sep-2005
[2068x3]
no.
you have to rebuild the header for BCC so that the to: address is 
the BCC: address, and the cc: field is none.
since BCC means blind copy - ie the recipient should not get to see 
the cc fields, and the email should be addressed to them.
PhilB
18-Sep-2005
[2071]
OK .. this seems to work .... thanks graham.
Graham
18-Sep-2005
[2072]
no problems.
Ladislav
19-Sep-2005
[2073x2]
One "poll" question. How many of you are using function with optional 
argument in your scripts and how much would you miss this feature?
Another "poll". What would you say to this:
Pekr
19-Sep-2005
[2075]
what do you mean by function with an "optional argument? do you mean 
refinement?
Ladislav
19-Sep-2005
[2076x2]
+-: :negate
+- 6 ; == -6
+- -6 ; == 6
Function with optional argument: we can say either:
    list-dir %.
or
    list-dir
Pekr
19-Sep-2005
[2078]
Weren't optional arguments problem in rebol? Wasn't it said to compliacte 
it language parser? I can live without them so far ... but ask those 
who code in rebol intensively ...
Henrik
19-Sep-2005
[2079]
I just use refinements, if I want optional arguments... but I rarely 
use them
Geomol
19-Sep-2005
[2080]
Ladislav, I've programmed an UNIX-like cd function with optional 
argument, but that's about it.
Ladislav
19-Sep-2005
[2081]
aha, but you are using it in the console rather than in sripts, aren't 
you?
Geomol
19-Sep-2005
[2082]
yes
Volker
19-Sep-2005
[2083]
its handy for console and i like it there. in programs its more a 
problem.
Ladislav
19-Sep-2005
[2084]
thanks
Pekr
19-Sep-2005
[2085]
Ladislav - why are you asking?
Ladislav
19-Sep-2005
[2086x3]
just to find out which way of handling UNSET! looks optimal
the NEGATE case: for me the name looks "ugly", I prefer something 
shorter, like +-
(any better idea?)
Geomol
19-Sep-2005
[2089]
Nope, I think your +- is fine and short.
Graham
19-Sep-2005
[2090]
why the need for short function names?  Rebol is a symbolic language, 
so why not use more symbols ? :)
Geomol
19-Sep-2005
[2091x2]
I have a question about the order of arguments to a function. I wanna 
hear your opinion. I'm programming REBOL versions of some of the 
Amiga graphics.library functions. BltMaskRGBMap is a function of 
mine, that will copy part of an image at a certain position and size 
to another image through a mask. It takes the arguments: source image, 
source position, destination image, destination position, size and 
finally mask. That would be the order of the arguments, if it was 
an Amiga graphics.library function. But in REBOL, destination is 
often (always?) first, so maybe I should switch source image and 
position with destination image and position? What do you think would 
be the better way for a REBOL programmer?
Graham, :-) readability maybe?
Graham
19-Sep-2005
[2093]
Well, I can't recall the last time I needed to negate something.