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

World: r3wp

[!REBOL3-OLD1]

BrianH
27-Apr-2009
[13585x2]
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
BrianH
27-Apr-2009
[13634]
Don't assume that it will store slot values. The reason that Rebin 
is being used in the host interface is to make the internal layout 
of the slot values something you don't see, so that it can change 
for different platforms.