World: r3wp
[Core] Discuss core issues
older newer | first last |
Graham 10-Feb-2007 [7089x2] | What was pekr talking about regarding alpha r3 core release? |
Do you know? | |
Ladislav 10-Feb-2007 [7091] | no |
Graham 10-Feb-2007 [7092] | too much beer? |
Ladislav 10-Feb-2007 [7093] | fiction writer, maybe |
Graham 10-Feb-2007 [7094x2] | porkies ? |
Seems I have enough clues now to write my little spreadsheet :) | |
Pekr 11-Feb-2007 [7096] | 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 :-) |
Gabriele 11-Feb-2007 [7097x2] | 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. | |
Ladislav 11-Feb-2007 [7099] | yes, the transformation to string and to block back and forth looks a bit messy |
Volker 11-Feb-2007 [7100x3] | 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. | |
Ladislav 11-Feb-2007 [7103] | UNBIND might help handling such constructs, maybe |
Volker 11-Feb-2007 [7104x2] | It would. do we have it? |
I hope in r3 | |
Ladislav 11-Feb-2007 [7106] | yes, it has been offered for R3 in a blog |
Graham 11-Feb-2007 [7107] | 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? |
Gabriele 11-Feb-2007 [7108x2] | >> 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) | |
Ladislav 11-Feb-2007 [7110x2] | 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] | |
Volker 11-Feb-2007 [7112] | yes. but keep in mind bind ignores functions and objects, so you must recurse into them too. |
Maxim 11-Feb-2007 [7113x6] | 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! | |
Anton 11-Feb-2007 [7119x2] | relax... rebol is probably not going nuts. There is a reason somewhere. |
quickly make a little example file which demonstrates the problem using a new console. | |
Maxim 11-Feb-2007 [7121x3] | hehe... its just that no probing or printing reveals anything out of the expected. |
using a new console, things behave as expected... which is why I am wondering why they don't in the running code | |
(using a block with simple values, the two lines above act as I would expect) | |
Anton 11-Feb-2007 [7124] | Ok, then fork the entire code and cut away chunks until it no longer displays the problem. |
Maxim 11-Feb-2007 [7125x2] | ehh impossible... we are talking bout an entire app here... 200-300kb of code. probably... and the problem occurs within an event loop. |
but look at the simplicity of the two lines above... can you image a way in which the select would return none and the find would return the object? | |
Anton 11-Feb-2007 [7127x2] | (not impossible - that technique works when I can think of nothing else). |
A confusion between lit-words and words maybe ? | |
Maxim 11-Feb-2007 [7129x2] | hum... |
unfortunatetely, I can't print the block, cause the objects have nested objects, and that causes an out of memory err, If I try to mold it :-( | |
Anton 11-Feb-2007 [7131x2] | write clipboard:// mold/all blk and paste it (and mold/all VAL) into a new editor window. |
Ah.. | |
Maxim 11-Feb-2007 [7133] | the actual app takes very little ram, but the objects, have bidirectional linking... so I guess the mold never reaches the end. |
Anton 11-Feb-2007 [7134] | Ok, then, for your test, before molding, process each object to set none all fields which could recurse. |
Maxim 11-Feb-2007 [7135x4] | hum... I'll try my inspector... maybe it can help me a bit... |
oops... closed altme by mistake... the inspector basically has the same problem... | |
I'm trying some block alterations... | |
wrt lit-word vs word... find is reacting as expected.... select is numb like a frog on ice | |
older newer | first last |