World: r3wp
[Core] Discuss core issues
older newer | first last |
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. |
older newer | first last |