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

World: r3wp

[!REBOL3-OLD1]

BrianH
14-Jun-2009
[15578]
Not really. They are (using a hack), but the binding of the code 
block is done after the imports are processed and before the code 
block starts executing. Once the code block starts executing the 
module context has already been defined. REBOL's evaluation and binding 
rules preclude any automatic rebinding.
Maxim
14-Jun-2009
[15579x2]
but the word exists in the module before the script is done.... its 
just not set yet... so it should be bound in the module and the script 
sets the value, since its running in the context of the module.
what you are saying is that for modules, we need to start declaring 
words?  not very rebolish. 


 I have to do so in slim to keep words local to the calling context, 
 but I would have tought that modules would do so automatically since 
 they replace the global context.

 any new word in the root of the spec block of the module should be 
 added to the module's context and set to unset! just like R2's global 
 context does.
BrianH
14-Jun-2009
[15581x3]
Um, no, a DOne script is running in its own context if it is a module, 
or the current context if not. The current context is not the context 
of the calling code - it exists independently.
Modules have their own context, but they don';t replace the "global" 
context.
Any set-word in the top-level of the module's code block is added 
to the module's context before the module code runs, just like an 
object. If you isolate the module, every word in the module's code 
block and all nested blocks, parens and paths are added to the module's 
context. The only words you need to "declare" are the exported words.
Maxim
14-Jun-2009
[15584]
ok that makes sense now.
BrianH
14-Jun-2009
[15585]
The bug#928 should be dismissed, marked as "not a bug", and left 
there for future reference. Thanks for helping document R3 :)
Maxim
14-Jun-2009
[15586x4]
but its revealing something deeper... DO is now totally useless.
cause it can't interact with the context its being called from.
well, in the module's perspective anyways.
(totally is a strong word... hehe)
BrianH
14-Jun-2009
[15590]
Not totally. It is useful in non-module scripts, and useful for scripts 
done for effect rather than for loading functions.
Maxim
14-Jun-2009
[15591]
ok let me do a single little test...
BrianH
14-Jun-2009
[15592]
Also, the IMPORT function is basically a fancy DO.
Maxim
14-Jun-2009
[15593x3]
oops noticed that I mismatched the bug number in the code examples 
of bug#928... I'll edit them.
just like slim's LOAD is a fancy DO   ;-)
that would be slim's 'OPEN... starting to be late... hehe
BrianH
14-Jun-2009
[15596x2]
Of the module bugs you have posted, the one that is still pretty 
nasty is bug#923. Needs tracing :(
Good night, be back tomorrow if I can.
Maxim
14-Jun-2009
[15598x3]
ok... here is a twist on bug 928... :-)

if I add 

myfunc: none 


at the top of the module in the supplied example I get this error 
instead:

Evaluating: /D/dev/project/liquid-r3/debug/mymodule-bug924.r
** Script error: print word is not bound to a context
** Where: catch if either either do begin do
** Near: catch/quit code

>>
this one I can't see how it can be proper, even if you can explain 
it.
note... 'PRINT is not bound to any context  !!! wtf?
BrianH
14-Jun-2009
[15601]
In which of the 3 files do you put the myfunc: none ?
Maxim
14-Jun-2009
[15602x2]
rebol [
	type: 'module
	name: 'mymodule-bug928
]

print "TADAM ... mymodule-bug928"
myfunc: none
do %myscript.r
myfunc 928
print is global it should accessible from any DO.
BrianH
14-Jun-2009
[15604]
Again, I'll be back tomorrow if I can.
Maxim
14-Jun-2009
[15605x3]
sure... better build a convicing argument cause the above is not 
acceptible  ;-)
heheh  good night.
I'm going back to comfortable R2 development now...
BrianH
14-Jun-2009
[15608]
It's a different bug than the one reported in bug#928. Good night.
Maxim
14-Jun-2009
[15609]
ciao
Janko
15-Jun-2009
[15610x2]
Apples idea how to do real concurrency (on multicore) .. http://images.apple.com/macosx/technology/docs/GrandCentral_TB_brief_20090608.pdf
-- it seems to be based on something like closures (or blocks from 
smalltalk)  -- it seems simple and clean idea
I posted it here as a food for thought on one of REBOL3 next developments.. 
making it concurrent
Ladislav
15-Jun-2009
[15612x2]
Janko: did you post it to the R3 chat too?  - may be better for Carl 
than this place
(I reposted it)
Janko
15-Jun-2009
[15614]
thanks .. I am not on R3 chat. I don't use R3 and R2 has enough secrets 
to discover for me still
Pekr
15-Jun-2009
[15615]
So called Erlang style concurrency - brief info - http://ulf.wiger.net/weblog/2008/02/06/what-is-erlang-style-concurrency/
TomBon
15-Jun-2009
[15616]
as said before, rebol with erlang like concurrency is a 
dooropener for many professional projects. btw mnesia,
the distributed hybrid database is very nice too.
Will
15-Jun-2009
[15617]
Here is a great example code using GrandCentral: "DispatchWebServer"

from the description: "A web server that uses one queue per HTTP 
connection. Supports HTTP pipelining and on-the-fly compression. 
Also shows use of dispatch-style signal and vnode event handling."

https://developer.apple.com/snowleopard/library/samplecode/DispatchWebServer/index.html
(ADC account needed)
Whoever is doing R3 on OS X, should have a look 8-)
Sunanda
15-Jun-2009
[15618]
Any good reason why
    true?
is defined, but not
    false?
BrianH
15-Jun-2009
[15619]
Because we already had that function: NOT. It is left to the user 
to declare false?: :not if they wish. That was the rationale at least.
Pekr
15-Jun-2009
[15620]
why such an ommision? if we have true?, then we surely have to have 
false? ... it almost feels like a design bug to not have one ..
BrianH
15-Jun-2009
[15621]
It might be added later, like empty?: :tail?, but so far we have 
been focusing on missing functionality. Things like that will likely 
be added later on when we are finishing up.
Pekr
17-Jun-2009
[15622]
So, now I am happy owner of HTC Touch Pro 2 ... now I need my first 
R3 build for it :-) http://www.htc.com/www/product/touchpro2/overview.html
Janko
17-Jun-2009
[15623]
Will .. that would be really interesting to look at as GC looks very 
interesting and minimal in concepts.. to bad I am not in ADC :(
amacleod
17-Jun-2009
[15624x2]
Pekr, I have had the HTC touch for a year and a half...been a little 
disappointed. I hope the newer versions are a bit better but I'm 
not sure if its the hardware or windows mobile that most disappoints...
HAve you seen teh new palm pre? It looks interesting!
If r3 was up and running on htc touch I think I would overlook alot 
of my issues with it...
Pekr
17-Jun-2009
[15626x2]
no, not yet, and I have no plan to support proprietary "OS" as PalmPre 
is. It allows some kind of web like development. OTOH I haven't studies 
it properly yet. I am quite disappointed by Android - it is a let-down 
for me, at least for what I saw on HTC devices - just hyped because 
of Google, nothing special ...
What were your issues? It is clearly not as smooth as iPhone is in 
operation. This is mostly because of capacitative vs resistive touch 
screen. I needed few days to make ma touch navigation more solid. 
Overall it feels more sluggish. But TouchFlo3D version 2 is quite 
snappier and I would not probably buy any Windows Mobile without 
that add-on.