World: r3wp
[Core] Discuss core issues
older newer | first last |
Izkata 30-Mar-2005 [844x3] | There probably is, but I prefer simpler commands so I know what's going on (^.-) |
ah | |
compose [(foo) (bar)] | |
Ammon 30-Mar-2005 [847] | How about... >> foo: [a [does this]] == [a [does this]] >> bar: [b [does that]] == [b [does that]] >> append copy foo bar == [a [does this] b [does that]] >> compose [(foo) (bar)] == [a [does this] b [does that]] |
Izkata 30-Mar-2005 [848] | ugghhh I still needa get used to 'copy |
Chris 30-Mar-2005 [849x2] | No, specifically looking for -- word [foo bar] |
I have a feeling that if 'reduce doesn't do it, then nothing will... | |
Ammon 30-Mar-2005 [851x2] | >> one-word: func [block /local val][val: copy [] foreach word block [append val get word]val] >> one-word [foo bar] == [a [does this] b [does that]] |
;~> | |
Chris 30-Mar-2005 [853] | I should have specified built-in... |
Ammon 30-Mar-2005 [854x2] | Hehe, I expected that. ;~> |
Although, I don't understand why. It is a one-line solution so I don't see why it should make a difference if it is built in or not... | |
Chris 30-Mar-2005 [856x2] | I was thinking (name pending) -- one-word: func [blk][head while [not tail? blk][blk: change/part blk get blk/1 1]] |
I'm not partial to creating new values when I don't have to :^) | |
Ammon 30-Mar-2005 [858x3] | I think I like that better. |
I think that this functionality should be added to GET | |
There are quite a few words in REBOL that, IMHO, should have automatic block handling. | |
Chris 30-Mar-2005 [861] | Hmm, and I was thinking of a refinement to 'reduce. 'Get makes more sense... |
[unknown: 10] 30-Mar-2005 [862] | ... Is there a quick trick to compare 2 pairs?? Seems 'lesser? or greater? dont work on pairs... |
Ammon 30-Mar-2005 [863] | Tell me, is 10x0 or 0x10 greater? |
[unknown: 10] 30-Mar-2005 [864x2] | from my point of view its equal ;-) |
Thansk for the wakeup call ;-) | |
Brock 30-Mar-2005 [866] | Are you thinking about this? >> data: 10x0 == 10x0 >> data/x == 10 >> data/y == 0 >> |
Ammon 30-Mar-2005 [867] | I'd just compare X and Y values separately... |
[unknown: 10] 30-Mar-2005 [868x2] | perhpas yes... |
Yes thats what i do currently... | |
Chris 30-Mar-2005 [870] | Are you trying to compare area? -- greater-pair?: func [p1 p2 /local ps][ps: reduce [p1 p2] pick ps (p1/x * p1/y) > (p2/x * p2/y)] -- which can be tweaked for when p1 and p2 are equal... |
[unknown: 10] 30-Mar-2005 [871] | Thanks Chris... i worked it out by splitting the pair into parts... |
Ladislav 31-Mar-2005 [872x2] | Chris: >> foo: [a [does this]] == [a [does this]] >> bar: [b [does that]] == [b [does that]] >> foobar: compose [(foo) (bar)] == [a [does this] b [does that]] |
ah, it's there already | |
Izkata 31-Mar-2005 [874] | Yes it is - but he wants [foo bar] to become [a [does this] b [does that]] without the () or anything else inside.. |
Anton 31-Mar-2005 [875] | I think the answer is: it's not in current rebol. |
Chris 31-Mar-2005 [876] | Yep, I'm resigned to that. (and I'll word my queries a little better next time :^) |
Gregg 1-Apr-2005 [877] | http://www.rebolforces.com/articles/pairs/ |
[unknown: 10] 1-Apr-2005 [878] | A nice one... |
Graham 5-Apr-2005 [879x2] | how does one find out the currrent secure level? |
secure query | |
eFishAnt 5-Apr-2005 [881] | a nice 1x1... |
Graham 5-Apr-2005 [882] | writing my own faq |
JaimeVargas 7-Apr-2005 [883x4] | I hope this is useful for someone REBOL [] rest: func [s [series!]][skip s 1] define-object: func [ spec [block!] /local arg-spec ctx-spec object-name constructor-name predicate-name attributes spec-rule type-spec continue? w ][ arg-names: copy [] continue?: [none] ;used to stop parsing name-rule: [set w word! (insert tail arg-names w)] type-rule: [set w word! (unless datatype? attempt [get w] [continue?: [end skip]])] spec-rule: [name-rule some [name-rule opt [into [some [type-rule continue?]]]]] if any [ not parse spec spec-rule arg-names <> unique arg-names ][ make error! "invalid spec" ] object-name: to-string first arg-names constructor-name: to-word join 'make- object-name predicate-name: to-word join first arg-names '? attributes: rest arg-names arg-spec: copy [] foreach itm attributes [ insert tail arg-spec reduce [ to-word join itm '-value either block? w: select spec itm [w][[any-type!]] ] ] ctx-spec: copy [] arg-names: extract arg-spec 2 1 repeat i length? attributes [ insert tail ctx-spec reduce [to-set-word attributes/:i to-get-word arg-names/:i] ] ;create constructor function set constructor-name make function! compose [(reform ["Makes a new" uppercase object-name "object with attributes" mold attributes]) (arg-spec)] compose/only [make object! (ctx-spec)] ;body ;create predicate function set predicate-name make function! compose [(reform ["Determines if value is a" uppercase object-name "object"]) value [object!] /local types] compose/deep/only [ either (attributes) = rest first value [ foreach itm (attributes) [ unless any [ [any-type!] = types: select (arg-spec) to-word join itm '-value find types type?/word value/:itm ][return false] ] true ][ false ] ] ] |
With it you can create objects that are type checked when constructed. | |
;; usage define-object [name attribute1 [datatype1 ...] ...] ;; creates two functions make-name name? | |
;; example untyped define-object [point x y] point? probe o: make-point 1 2 point? probe o: context [x: 1 y: "two"] ;; example typed define-object [point x [integer!] y [integer!]] point? probe o: make-point 1 2 point? probe o: context [x: 1 y: "two"] | |
Ammon 7-Apr-2005 [887] | Jaime, your REST function (AFAICT) has the same functionality as NEXT is there any reason that you are not using NEXT? |
JaimeVargas 7-Apr-2005 [888x2] | Didn't knew about next. I will use it from now on. |
Do you find define-object useful? | |
Ammon 7-Apr-2005 [890] | I can see how it could be useful in the right environment. |
JaimeVargas 7-Apr-2005 [891x3] | ;-) |
If anyone ever wanted multi-methods or function overload in rebol here is the answer. Enjoy ;-) REBOL [] define-method: func [ 'name [word!] spec [block!] locals [block!] code [block!] /local w type-rule spec-rule continue? register-name methods-name ][ ;; first validate the spec continue?: [none] ;used to stop parsing type-rule: [set w word! (unless datatype? attempt [get w] [continue?: [end skip]])] spec-rule: [some [word! into [type-rule continue?]]] unless parse spec spec-rule [make error! "invalid spec"] register-name: to-word join :name '-register methods-name: to-word join :name '-methods? unless value? name [ context [ dispatch-table: copy [] spec-fingerprint: func [spec [block!] /local types][ types: copy [] foreach itm extract/index spec 2 2 [insert tail types itm/1 ] types ] values-fingerprint: func [values [block!] /local types][ types: copy [] foreach v values [insert tail types type?/word v] types ] retrieve-func: func [values [block!]][select/only dispatch-table values-fingerprint values] set :name func [values [block!]][ do compose [(retrieve-func values) (values)] ] set :register-name func [spec code /local fingerprint pos][ fingerprint: spec-fingerprint spec either found? pos: find/only dispatch-table fingerprint [ poke dispatch-table 1 + index? pos function spec locals code ][ insert tail dispatch-table reduce [fingerprint function spec locals code] ] ] set :methods-name does [probe dispatch-table] ] ] do reduce [register-name spec code] ] define-method f [x [integer!]] [] [x + 1] define-method f [s [block!]] [] [attempt [pick s 2]] define-method f [x [decimal!]] [] [sine x] f[5] == 6 f[[one two three]] == two f[90.0] == 1.0 | |
Are the above functions DEFINE-METHOD and DEFINE-OBJECT worthy for the rebol.org library? | |
older newer | first last |