r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[!REBOL3-OLD1]

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
BrianH
27-Apr-2009
[13628]
We will have rebin for that.
Steeve
27-Apr-2009
[13629x2]
rewhat ?
yes in some decades
BrianH
27-Apr-2009
[13631]
ReBin - binary encoding for REBOL values. Carl is working on it now 
- as the new host interfaces require it. We will have it very soon.
Ladislav
27-Apr-2009
[13632]
to-binary on decimal is actually the only method how to obtain the 
precise representation of a decimal. For money! mold suffices
Steeve
27-Apr-2009
[13633]
If Rebin store slot values, it will not be compact, same memory overhead.

To binary! furnish a more compact way to store data, with a speed 
issue indeed