World: r3wp

it looks, like you want to use any expression, not just function 
evaluation?

yes ..

then it is not for you, this was just for a function evaluation

Ok, so looks like it will have to be a parser

yes

but it would be nice to be able to use the rebol parser do evaluate 
words within a mathematical context only

when using a parser, you can even use operator precedence rules and 
such

A non parse based solution ( ie. parse = too hard! )

eval-math: func [ exp [string!]
	/local t allowed okay
][
	allowed: [ + - / square-root log-e * ]
	t: to block! exp
	bind t '+
	okay: true
	allowed: [ + - / square-root log-e * ]
	foreach e t [
		switch/default type?/word e [
			paren! [ eval-math form e ]
			word! [ if not find allowed e [ okay: false break ]]
			decimal! []
			integer! []
		][ okay: false break ]
	]
	either okay [
		do t
	][ none ]
]

Hmm.  Needs debugging

eval-math: func [ exp [string!]
	/local t allowed
][
	allowed: [ + - / square-root log-e * ]
	t: to block! exp
	bind t '+
	foreach e t [
		switch/default type?/word e [
			paren! [ if none? eval-math form e [ return none ]	]
			word! [ 
				if not find allowed e [ 
					print [ "not allowed is : " e ]
					return none
				]
			]
			decimal! []
			integer! []
		][ return none ]
	]
	do t
]

How does one access the parts of a function?

eg; func [face /local var][print face/text] 
how do I get to the [print face/text ] part?

second func [face /local var] [print face/text] ; == [print face/text]

oh?  and third is the locals ?

I was thinking it should be after third and not before :(

first is the simplified spec, third is the complete spec

ah ...

third was added later than first and second IIRC

What was pekr talking about regarding alpha r3 core release?

Do you know?

no

too much beer?

fiction writer, maybe

porkies ?

Seems I have enough clues now to write my little spreadsheet :)

Graham - it was a joke. And I thought as maybe ppl would not understand, 
if I would post it in Announce group, I posted it rather in Humour 
group :-)

graham: why are you using to-block there? (my assumption is that 
you wanted to avoid the binding of load, but then you manually bind 
to the global context, so you can just use load)

a different approach is to create a context with only the words you 
want to allow, then use to-block, then bind it to your context only, 
then do it.

yes, the transformation to string and to block back and forth looks 
a bit messy

in-shadow-context: use first system/words['some-word]

then bind to 'some-word. somewhat  expensive, but you do it only 
on input. 

Escapes: it  does not go into #[object![..]]. I have  a function 
which does  that too.  ifthe user can do a  stringwith a new word, 
that  word is still global.

and  then fill your functions in.
use first system/words reduce[f1: (:f1) ... 'some-word]

no,  compose.

UNBIND might help handling such constructs, maybe

It would. do we have it?

I hope in  r3

yes, it has been offered for R3 in a blog

Yes, I want to bind it to a different context to be safe .. so exactly 
how do I create this different context for all the math stuff?

>> a: context compose [
[    (to set-word! '+) get in system/words '+
[    ]
>> a/+

** Script Error: + expected value1 argument of type: number pair 
char money date time tuple
** Near: a/+

(don't ask me why +: is not a valid set-word)

another option:


math-words: [+ - * / ** = == =? < <= > >= and or xor square-root 
negate]
math-words: use math-words reduce [math-words]
foreach word math-words [set word get in system word]
etc.

the last line should have been:

    foreach word math-words [set word get in system/words word]

yes. but keep in mind bind ignores functions and objects, so you 
must  recurse into them too.

can anyone confirm that these two statements should return the same 
value for the same blk and val?

select blk val
second find blk val


as long as val does exist in blk.

does select reduce both args before selecting?

my god... REBOL is going nuts!  I have a situation where the above 
is not true...  and the select pairs are [aword an-object bword another-object]

and only the find works... if I try to select using 'aword   it always 
returns none

print first reduce blk

raises an error as expected since aword is not defined anywhere!

help! this is tooo strange!

relax... rebol is probably not going nuts. There is a reason somewhere.