World: r3wp
[!REBOL3-OLD1]
older newer | first last |
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. |
older newer | first last |