World: r3wp
[!REBOL3-OLD1]
older newer | first last |
Steeve 23-Apr-2009 [13466x4] | i have very |
i have a very bad connection currently, could it be related to some network errors bad managed by the http scheme ? | |
but a crash, geez.... | |
it's violent | |
BrianH 23-Apr-2009 [13470x2] | The HTTP scheme needs a lot of work at the moment - it's a work in process. What is there already works great, but it's incomplete. |
I think error handling is part on the incomplete part. | |
Steeve 23-Apr-2009 [13472x2] | yep but there is more than just a missing part in the error handling, it's crashing rebol, it's bad... |
and i can't say why, there is no given reason | |
BrianH 23-Apr-2009 [13474] | I haven't had the chance to go over the scheme yet, and Gab and Maarten have been busy. |
Pekr 24-Apr-2009 [13475] | New blog posted - http://www.rebol.net/r3blogs/0193.html- collect-words |
BrianH 24-Apr-2009 [13476x2] | And that might be enogh to implement Ladislav's FUNCTOR - I'll check with Carl first to see if he has any plans for the existing one. |
Ladislav, I've made the case for your FUNCTOR in R3 chat #3726. Join in on the discussion if you like. | |
Steeve 25-Apr-2009 [13478x4] | hey guys, have we a clever way to extract same variables with different values in 2 different objects ? In one word: the difference. I mean, without doing a nasty loop |
i tried, >> difference/skip values-of obj1 values-of obj2 2 but it fails (something wrong with the difference function when values are none!) | |
Please, don't say to me, the only hope is to do a foreach loop. | |
not rebolish | |
Henrik 25-Apr-2009 [13482] | you write VALUES-OF, but do you mean a block of words that are different? |
Steeve 25-Apr-2009 [13483] | you may come with something completly different, i just want the list of variables which have different values |
Henrik 25-Apr-2009 [13484] | now that we have FOREACH on objects, it could be a good time to ask on the blog or in chat. |
Steeve 25-Apr-2009 [13485] | Hey, that's not clever at all |
Henrik 25-Apr-2009 [13486] | I was referring to that the FOREACH change was in the same ballpark as would be required for this to work without making loops. |
Steeve 25-Apr-2009 [13487x3] | even with UNIQUE, i got a stupid result. >> obj2: make obj1: context [a: b: none] [a: 1] == make object! [ a: 1 b: none ] >> unique/skip append body-of obj1 body-of obj2 2 == [ a: none b: none b: none ] what's wrong with all thess bugous functions ? |
/skip doesnn't work at all in INTERSECT, UNIQUE, DIFFERENCE, UNION... | |
pfff.... | |
Henrik 25-Apr-2009 [13490] | please note it in curecode, thanks |
Steeve 25-Apr-2009 [13491x2] | boring... |
it will be delayed until 2010 | |
Henrik 25-Apr-2009 [13493] | and it won't be by not posting in curecode? |
Steeve 25-Apr-2009 [13494] | i noticed the same bugs with R2 previously, never been corrected. I think no one except me want to use those vector functions. I should forget it |
Henrik 25-Apr-2009 [13495] | I should forget it nice attitude. why do you think the bugs haven't been fixed, then? |
Steeve 25-Apr-2009 [13496] | It's only corrected if several user or Carl have the same wanting hurgently, if not, it will be delayed until the first beta release, in some years... |
Henrik 25-Apr-2009 [13497] | and it won't be fixed at all if it's not reported to curecode. |
Pekr 25-Apr-2009 [13498x3] | Steeve - you are not constructive, sorry. With messages like "boring", "pfff", "in some years", please save your comments for yourself then, if you don't belive that posting to CureCode and asking for priority change might help. |
It is exactly attitude like yours, that is becoming boring ... | |
... at least to ppl, that try to change some things. R3 is simply not complete, that is the fact. So - we can either participate (but accept the incomplete state), or wait for final release .. | |
Steeve 25-Apr-2009 [13501x2] | exactly my opinion, i will wait |
until the waiting bugs in curecode are all corrected, then i'll post new ones, i got new ones, several. | |
Henrik 25-Apr-2009 [13503] | Steeve, that is the incorrect method. If the bugs are not posted NOW, they may be harder to fix when R3 goes beta. We don't know, but Carl has stated several times that when Core issues need to be looked in to, we must do that now. |
PeterWood 25-Apr-2009 [13504] | I can understand how Steeve feels about posting bugs to CureCode. It's very frustrating that when bugs don't get looked at because they are not flavour of the day. |
Steeve 25-Apr-2009 [13505] | Not my opinion concerning some bugs i found. I think they have a lower priority than those, I or other poeple, have posted currently. I want my previous request corrected at first, then i'll come with new ones with lower priority. If you don't agree with that, then find the bugs yourself |
Henrik 25-Apr-2009 [13506x2] | Not posting bugs to curecode is a good way to betray the continuing development of R3. |
And I basically strongly disagree with this method, because a non-posted bug report will eventually be forgotten by the person who found the bug until years later when it turns up again for a different person. It serves no purpose for anyone, not posting the report, including the would-be reporter. | |
PeterWood 25-Apr-2009 [13508] | I will continue to post bugs I find in CureCode when I find them but the lack of action on the bugs that I've posted (such as server ports not working on OS X) discourages me from doing more testing. |
Steeve 25-Apr-2009 [13509] | If i see a better aknowledge of the priority of some bugs in curecode, then i will change my mind. |
Henrik 25-Apr-2009 [13510] | Priority is not a parameter in the REPORTING of bugs. It is a paramenter in FIXING the bugs. I don't see how software development could work, if everyone posted bugs based on perceived priority on whether they would be fixed. Carl expects us to do alot of the work with finding bugs. When they will be fixed is up to him. |
Pekr 25-Apr-2009 [13511x3] | Steeve - your attitude is the same what DocKimbel showed here some two weeks ago. I thought that I am talking to adult ppl, and I really don't understand such childish behaviour. Such an attitude is treat to those, who try to actually do something. Do you really think that the rest of us would not like to have R3 available few years ago? |
So, if you feel you will not report bugs, then don't do it - what else could be said? | |
... everybody is free to do anything actually ... | |
Steeve 25-Apr-2009 [13514x2] | further... Take the implementation of modules and protect stuffs, I agree it may be (maybe) deeply modify the core and it's why it's must be done now, accordingly Carl and BrianH. But for a user concern, it has a very low priority. It's only of interest for those who want to create new commercial applications with R3, in few years.... But we will not develop new applications, if some important things that were working in R2 are not working anymore in R3. It's what i call high priority, NO REGRESSION allowed. |
something that worked in R2 must be corrected at first, something new can be postponed. just my opinion | |
older newer | first last |