World: r3wp
[!REBOL3-OLD1]
older newer | first last |
BrianH 27-Apr-2009 [13578x2] | In theory, but I think it works on the port fields as if it were an object, not on the returned data. |
I haven't checked though. | |
Steeve 27-Apr-2009 [13580x2] | Uhm, was not my request, it would be more usefull to be able to use FOREACH as an ACTOR in a scheme. |
So on data, rather than to populate properties of an object port | |
BrianH 27-Apr-2009 [13582] | Yeah, I didn't request that either. Did you file a CureCode ticket for FOREACH on ports? I recall some overly general ticket you filed that was requested to be broken up iinto individual tickets, but not the individual tickets. |
Steeve 27-Apr-2009 [13583] | have to |
BrianH 27-Apr-2009 [13584x3] | Ticket 556. |
You might be a little late here - port! has been added to the any-object! typeset (I can't say for sure). You gotta file tickets if you want to get things done. | |
At least on a native level. On a mezzanine level you can do it yourself, as long as it's a good idea :) | |
Steeve 27-Apr-2009 [13587x2] | uhm, the any-object! type is troublemaker |
Port should not be in it, to allow functions to behave as scheme actors | |
BrianH 27-Apr-2009 [13589] | It's not a type, it's a collection of types (typeset!). In this case a collection of the types that act like objects. |
Steeve 27-Apr-2009 [13590] | i'm aware of that, don't do a disgression |
BrianH 27-Apr-2009 [13591] | It's just there so you can use it in function specs for functions that act on objects to let them act on other object-like things, when they are being sed in object-like ways. |
Steeve 27-Apr-2009 [13592] | I'm not sure, but i just think there is a difference in the way of treating the argument any-object! and object! In the first case the port is populated like an object. In the second, the function is usable as an actor for schemes. It's really different use cases, I hope i'm wrong here. |
BrianH 27-Apr-2009 [13593] | If you want FOREACH to work on ports in a certain way, you need to write a ticket for that. Mentioning it here won't accomplish anything, as Carl almost never sees the stuff we write here. |
Steeve 27-Apr-2009 [13594x2] | see the arguments of COPY by example |
copy don't use any-object! because of that | |
BrianH 27-Apr-2009 [13596x2] | COPY hasn't been changed to use any-object! - that may yet happen, but any-object! is too new for it to have propagated yet. |
I doubt it, as COPY doesn't act on error! and task! in an object-like way. | |
Steeve 27-Apr-2009 [13598] | if i understand correctly how Carl managed generic behavior for the any-object! argument, COPY will never be changed like you think |
BrianH 27-Apr-2009 [13599] | I doubt it |
Steeve 27-Apr-2009 [13600] | Because it would remove the use case of COPY as an actor. |
BrianH 27-Apr-2009 [13601] | Um, no it wouldn't. It would just allow error!, task! and module! to be copied too (which would be a bad idea). |
Steeve 27-Apr-2009 [13602] | we will see, i just hope you're right here |
BrianH 27-Apr-2009 [13603] | Typesets are just shortcuts for adding all of the types they contain to the function spec. They have no inherent meaning. |
Steeve 27-Apr-2009 [13604x3] | ok |
so actually they | |
you say Typesets are useless :) | |
Ladislav 27-Apr-2009 [13607] | hi as far as I know it is possible to convert binary to decimal in R3. Is there already a reverse conversion? |
Steeve 27-Apr-2009 [13608] | to binary! |
BrianH 27-Apr-2009 [13609x2] | Typesets are really useful - do you want to write all of that out? Plus, they are implemented as bitsets, so they are really efficient. |
The backported version of typesets in R2-Forward is implemented as blocks of datatype! values - not as efficient. | |
Steeve 27-Apr-2009 [13611x3] | find any-object! type? :value Uhm cool, i completly forget that point |
ok i changed my mind, it's useful | |
working with parse as well ? | |
Henrik 27-Apr-2009 [13614] | interesting that to-binary works for decimal, but not money. |
Steeve 27-Apr-2009 [13615] | bah, you can store a fixed point decimal, what the need to store money ? |
BrianH 27-Apr-2009 [13616] | A lot of stuff doesn't work for money! yet - we have a stack of deferred tickets for money!, not as many as for vector! though. |
Steeve 27-Apr-2009 [13617] | vector vector vector, FIRST !!!! |
BrianH 27-Apr-2009 [13618] | We'll get to them - right now we're working on lower-level stuff. |
Henrik 27-Apr-2009 [13619] | no rush on money from my perspective. just pointing it out. |
Steeve 27-Apr-2009 [13620] | something lower than vectors ? What could it be... neutrinos ? |
BrianH 27-Apr-2009 [13621] | Lower-level in terms of core functionality. R3 is weird - there are some mezzanines that are lower-level than some datatypes :) |
Steeve 27-Apr-2009 [13622x2] | What !!! Some mezzanines are lower ? it's a joke right ? ahah |
(i forgot that LOAD was a mezzanine now) | |
Ladislav 27-Apr-2009 [13624] | to binary for money: it does not make as much sense as for the decimal! datatype, since the datatype is accurate. what would you need it for? |
BrianH 27-Apr-2009 [13625] | For that matter, half of DO is mezzanine, or rather "intrinsic" - what we call REBOL code called internally by native code. |
Henrik 27-Apr-2009 [13626] | Ladislav, I have no idea. What do you need to-binary on decimal for? |
Steeve 27-Apr-2009 [13627] | file storing in a compact format |
older newer | first last |