World: r3wp
[!REBOL3-OLD1]
older newer | first last |
Maxim 14-May-2009 [14208] | are there any matrix operations for vectors? |
Steeve 14-May-2009 [14209] | in your dreams Maxim, only in your dreams... |
BrianH 14-May-2009 [14210x2] | Not yet. We're waiting to add that until we implement multidimensional vectors. |
Same with Steeve's scalar math request. | |
Pekr 14-May-2009 [14212x2] | multivectors? I am curious about its semantics ... |
I can't feel there is any intention to add such feature for 3.0 :-) | |
Steeve 14-May-2009 [14214] | can't or can ? |
Pekr 14-May-2009 [14215] | can't. It is not on R3.0 list of features, IIRC. |
BrianH 14-May-2009 [14216] | We aree also curious about the semantics of multidimensional vectors, which is why they aren't implemented yet. |
Steeve 14-May-2009 [14217] | I hope Brian may enter these features in Carl's brain, by force... |
Pekr 14-May-2009 [14218] | :-) |
Maxim 14-May-2009 [14219] | we need pekr to argue with carl too ;-) |
BrianH 14-May-2009 [14220] | They are lower priority than security issues (the reason for the new reflection), multitasking (the reason for the new system), etc. |
Pekr 14-May-2009 [14221x3] | I think that you have to use my past aproach - to cry loud, to cry often, to cry on many places ..... |
My experience is, that Carl works in his own world, and it is good, we communicate with him via some "API" :-) E.g. I had to mention article about the need to use better timers (not done yet) for something like 3 or 4 times. Then, when I found the right time and his mood to actually look into it, I think that he agreed that there is better solution than what we now have ... | |
Brian: I think that tasking is not going in for 3.0 | |
BrianH 14-May-2009 [14224] | What we then had, or what we now have? He redid timers once already... |
Pekr 14-May-2009 [14225] | I think that we need - plugins, security, gfx, gui, few protocols (later some engine like cheyenne inside), well, we need many things. Also current implementation of codecs is absolutly useless, no concept, just a workaround ... |
BrianH 14-May-2009 [14226] | We needed the system object changes for modularity and security too. Once we clean up for those, multitasking won't be that hard. |
Pekr 14-May-2009 [14227x2] | BrainH: I'll point you to one article, wait a min., I need to find it. Actually - it was Cyphre who found it IIRC. |
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/system/timers_intro.aspx we imo need multimedia timers, definitely. So "small" change can make big difference. We don't ned to look pre W2K imo. And it is crazy that MS has all this mess in their API. The good thing is, that timers are host layer, so community can advance it ... | |
Will 14-May-2009 [14229] | could this help in R3? http://www.cilk.com/The Cilk++ cross-platform solution offers the easiest, quickest, and most reliable way to maximize application performance on multicore processors. |
BrianH 14-May-2009 [14230x2] | The reason Carl is focusing on these simple datatype changes now (like vector!, image! and money!) is because they affect rebin, and rebin not being done is currently what is blocking the release of the host code. |
Will, that's not cross-platform enough for R3 :( | |
Pekr 14-May-2009 [14232] | I wonder how he resolved the problem he advised in R3 Chat, that with his initial idea not everything could be dynamic (draw). Hopefully he found some solution. |
Maxim 14-May-2009 [14233] | is R3 coded in C or C++ |
Pekr 14-May-2009 [14234] | Well, if Carl uses CureCode, I should post Timer related ticket probably :-) ... and maybe BlitJit/AsmJit ones too :-) |
BrianH 14-May-2009 [14235] | Mostly C, though AGG is written in C++. |
Pekr 14-May-2009 [14236x2] | Max - I think it is C, although AGG is C++ |
BrianH: what is FIRST+? What is the difference to pick port 1 or just first port? | |
BrianH 14-May-2009 [14238x2] | FIRST+ takes a word that refers to a series and it advances the word to the next position while returning the first value. |
It's a speed/simplicity thing. | |
Pekr 14-May-2009 [14240x2] | Something like: str: next str? |
ah, ok, should have read all your post :-) | |
Maxim 14-May-2009 [14242] | Many new funcs play with the supplied series which is great! |
BrianH 14-May-2009 [14243] | Here's the R2-Forward version: first+: funco [ {Return FIRST of series, and increment the series index.} [catch] 'word [word! paren!] "Word must be a series." ; paren! added for R2 ][ ; Workaround for R3 change in lit-word! parameters with paren! arguments if paren? :word [set/any 'word do :word] throw-on-error [also pick get word 1 set word next get word] ] |
Pekr 14-May-2009 [14244] | what is funco? I read its help, but don't understand. So normal function creation in R3 creates copy of body, whereas funco shares it? |
Steeve 14-May-2009 [14245] | funco remains me pulco citron (pulco citrus) a beverage |
Pekr 14-May-2009 [14246] | there starts to be too many function related functions: function, func, funct, funco .... |
BrianH 14-May-2009 [14247] | Right. FUNCO is basically like R2's FUNC - only sa to use under certain circumstances. |
Steeve 14-May-2009 [14248] | Pekr, you have the sources of func and funco in R3 |
BrianH 14-May-2009 [14249x2] | But without the throw-on-error stuff.. Just use it for functions with correct syntax. |
funco: make function! [ "Defines a function, but does not copy spec or body." spec [block!] "Help string (opt) followed by arg words (and opt type and string)" body [block!] "The body block of the function" ][ ; For functions known to have no syntax errors or recursive issues. make function! spec body ] | |
Pekr 14-May-2009 [14251] | just weird naming which makes no sense. REBOL always tried to name things full-name, not some weird abbreviations ... this is not the case with function related functions ... |
BrianH 14-May-2009 [14252] | That's the R2 version. |
Pekr 14-May-2009 [14253] | would it be much slower to have just one with refinements? |
Steeve 14-May-2009 [14254] | surely |
BrianH 14-May-2009 [14255x3] | It's short for func-original. It's the function used to define many mezzanine functions in R3. Fast, no error checking. |
Pekr, the answer to your question is yes, it would be *much* slower to have one with refinements. | |
That's why the only function creation function with a refinement is FUNCT - since it does so much work anyways that the refinement overhead is much lower in comparison to the rest of the code. | |
older newer | first last |