World: r3wp
[Core] Discuss core issues
older newer | first last |
Anton 1-Apr-2008 [9879] | The words in block maintain their bindings. This is what you want; the words retain the meanings from the context the user wrote them in. (ie. your locals do not affect those words because nowhere do you bind the words to any of your own contexts.) |
Fork 1-Apr-2008 [9880] | do context[do :block] ... that would give it a new context and run it there. What kind of thing would that break? |
Anton 1-Apr-2008 [9881] | So if I write test-block "section" [ print reps ] then REPS means what *I* (the user of the test-block function) thinks it means, not what test-block thinks in its little context. |
Fork 1-Apr-2008 [9882] | Hmmm. Ok, so if I want to have local variables in a test-block the context declaration would need to live there? That is different? |
Anton 1-Apr-2008 [9883] | (First DO does nothing extra, just returns the object) Again, context [do :block] is no more (except 'self) than: do :block |
Fork 1-Apr-2008 [9884] | I did try that but it didn't seem to evaluate the block |
Anton 1-Apr-2008 [9885] | You could do something like this: use [var1 var2] block or context join [var1: 100 var2: 200] block |
Fork 1-Apr-2008 [9886] | Now it's evaluating, hm. Wonder what I did before. |
Anton 1-Apr-2008 [9887] | There're lots of confusions here when starting out :) beware ! |
Fork 1-Apr-2008 [9888] | Yes! |
Anton 1-Apr-2008 [9889] | But I'm wondering why you want to subvert the meaning of the words in the block to your local meanings. |
Fork 1-Apr-2008 [9890] | Well, I have one test block after another in a line |
Anton 1-Apr-2008 [9891] | Surely you want the block to retain all its meanings ? |
Fork 1-Apr-2008 [9892x2] | I'm used to C++, so I like scopes. They make me happy :) |
So I was wondering if I could let the concept of each test-block being a scope come from test-block itself | |
Anton 1-Apr-2008 [9894] | Rebol's contexts are better ! (But scope is good for compiling.) |
Fork 1-Apr-2008 [9895x4] | Because if one test block goes: |
var: 15 | |
I don't want the next test-block to be entered with var set to 15 | |
I want it set to none initially | |
Anton 1-Apr-2008 [9899] | Oh ok, so letting set-words be locals automatically. context block |
Fork 1-Apr-2008 [9900x2] | Does context affect anything besides set-words ? |
e.g. will everything else bind the same as you would have otherwise expected? | |
Anton 1-Apr-2008 [9902x2] | No, and the set-words are searched only in the block specified (not "sub-blocks"). |
This is getting into lfunc territory, I think. | |
Fork 1-Apr-2008 [9904x2] | Yes, I was thinking I should study that |
It appears that REBOL is just more free about this by default. You make a context for a whole bunch of code, the words bind freely, and then you blow it all away on the context level. | |
Anton 1-Apr-2008 [9906x2] | The question is, how deep do you go looking for set-words ? |
Yes, much more free. And I love it that way. | |
Fork 1-Apr-2008 [9908] | Well, again, I'll say... depends on what you're trying to write. :) |
Anton 1-Apr-2008 [9909] | True, large projects need rigorous standards. |
Fork 1-Apr-2008 [9910] | I'm an EE, so my biases are going to be a certain way. In fact, I try to bring that need for structure and formalism to things that are typically thought of as unimportant for having them, e.g. GUI code. |
Anton 1-Apr-2008 [9911] | I'm all for formalism. Rebol allows many gradations from extremely free, to quite strict (if you're prepared to write some support functions like Ladislav). |
Fork 1-Apr-2008 [9912] | I worry, for instance, about the semantics of if your app starts drawing on MOUSE_DOWN and then keeps processing MOUSE_MOVE as if you are drawing until you get a MOUSE_UP... but then your app loses focus while the mouse is down (for instance, due to a window popping up or maybe the user hit alt-tab). So the app gets lost, or information gets lost, or whatever |
Anton 1-Apr-2008 [9913] | Which is great for high-speed prototyping. |
Fork 1-Apr-2008 [9914] | Yes, high-speed prototyping does seem to be REBOL's area. I've tried Awk and PHP and Perl and such and thought they were all terrible. |
Anton 1-Apr-2008 [9915] | Yes, that's very interesting, and I'm going to have to spend some more time thinking about it. |
Fork 1-Apr-2008 [9916x2] | If you mean the mouse thing, I have a blog article / screencast about it |
http://hostilefork.com/2007/11/25/lost-focus-placeholder/ | |
Anton 1-Apr-2008 [9918x3] | Although I had noticed apps misbehaving on refocusing, I hadn't really thought much about it. |
I guess my attitude was to just get the thing working first, and worry about these sorts of edge cases later. | |
That placeholder concept is cool. I wonder if it shouldn't be integrated into the OS ? | |
Fork 1-Apr-2008 [9921x2] | I like this quote: "Some facets of usability ( such as cancellation, undo, progress bars, and others) require software architecture support . Because they reach so deeply into the architecture of a system, these facets must be built into the system from its inception rather than added after an initial system design and user interface has been achieved." |
Glad you like it... I just think it would be nice to see more things like that. I don't know that I think this particular issue is super high priority, it just represents a more rigorous way of thinking about such problems. My article on undo/redo tied to single user events is actually probably something I care more about, but it's another thing that people don't take as seriously as I... http://hostilefork.com/2007/11/25/undo-single-user-event/ | |
Anton 1-Apr-2008 [9923] | No, it's excellent work. Advance the standard of modern applications. |
Fork 1-Apr-2008 [9924] | Thanks again. Well, I decided the best thing I could do was to show the ideas as I haven't really been writing software for a few years |
Anton 1-Apr-2008 [9925] | It's all part of "The Great Plan" to clarify each concept in computing :) |
Fork 1-Apr-2008 [9926x2] | Well, back to REBOL/Core :) I do feel that it's nice to find ways in which it can be applied more formally. Maybe you can't validate the *process* by which a REBOL program achieves a result, but you can validate the *product* of its processes and check them for validity. I think I would consider it that way, in that I would write tools to do all kinds of massive things in REBOL but then very carefully write an output-checker in another language. |
Ok, gnite, and thank you for all your help. I've updated the code and still appreciate suggestions: http://pastebin.com/m1f01d32a | |
Geomol 1-Apr-2008 [9928] | Fork, it's tiny issues, but you might wanna do this: In the set-value and switch functions, you have ... none = find ... In the case of checking for none, you might wanna do: if none? find ... |
older newer | first last |