World: r3wp
[!REBOL3-OLD1]
older newer | first last |
Henrik 11-Jul-2009 [16240] | I find it a little strange that it is so slow: >> source object object: make function! [[ "Defines a unique object." blk [block!] "Object words and values." ][ make object! append blk none ]] |
Tomc 11-Jul-2009 [16241] | P: well, how often do you create 10K objects at once? :-) frequently |
BrianH 11-Jul-2009 [16242] | It is slow because he reuses the same spec block over and over, which means that with every loop iteration another #[none] is added to the spec block. This means that the spec block has to be expanded many times, with reallocation overhead. The OBJECT function was meant to be used with specs that aren't reused - it's a convenience function for high-level objects, which may be replaced by a change to MAKE object! to have an implicit none on the end of the spec instead of needing to add an actual one. |
Gregg 12-Jul-2009 [16243] | Why not just have it use JOIN internally, rather than APPEND? |
Pekr 12-Jul-2009 [16244] | Append is native too, no? |
Gregg 12-Jul-2009 [16245x2] | But APPEND changes the spec block, which caused the speed issue Peter pointed out. |
At this point, I don't see the value in the OBJECT func myself. | |
Pekr 12-Jul-2009 [16247] | Because of the speed issue? |
Gregg 12-Jul-2009 [16248] | No, that's incidental. |
Sunanda 12-Jul-2009 [16249] | Yes, looking at object, there are two problems: 1. it is slow .... though as Gregg says, that looks like it can be fixed by changing its pith to: make object! join blk none 2, it is unnecessary. I never realised until now that this works fine to set default values: make object! [a: b: c: d: none] |
BrianH 12-Jul-2009 [16250] | Sunanda, the OBJECT function was one of the language usability tweaks we made while writing the R3 GUI code. It is likely that the functionality of OBJECT will be added to the MAKE object! handler, at which point OBJECT will just be another word for the CONTEXT function. In the meanwhile we have already seen the value of it in the GUI source. |
sqlab 13-Jul-2009 [16251] | Sub-panels do no longer work with the demo. The error messages is ** Script error: append2 has no value ** Where: repeat do switch applier apply if foreach if do-face if foreach do-tr ggers switch-panel view-sub-panel do switch applier apply if foreach if do-face if actor all do-style all until do-event do-event do-event either applier wake- p loop applier wait do-events if view catch either either applier do try demo ** Near: repeat n 60 [ append2 blk 'label ajoin ["Field " n] ... ** Note: use WHY? for more about this error |
PatrickP61 13-Jul-2009 [16252x2] | Yeah, I saw that too, I tracked it down to the APPEND2 command which is no longer used in the GUI.R Instead, it looks like the REPEND command took it's place, but was not changed in the DEMO.R |
This work-around should fix the demo for sub-panels: Run R3 as you normally would then type this command: APPEND2: :REPEND Then you can run the DEMO. It is just a quick fix until the DEMO.R script is changed. | |
BrianH 13-Jul-2009 [16254] | That may not work the way you think since REPEND (which has 2 arguments) didn't actually take the place of APPEND2 (3 arguments). |
Pekr 14-Jul-2009 [16255] | Ah, Carl is preparing to split user and system context. What will that mean? Respectively - what is the purpose of such change, to have those isolated? Better modularisation? |
PatrickP61 14-Jul-2009 [16256] | BrianH, I thought it was a straigt replacement, but looking closer at the code, i do see the change. Disregard my work-around suggestion. |
BrianH 14-Jul-2009 [16257x2] | Patrick, you can replace APPEND2 with APPEND APPEND. |
It's a global search-and-replace in the source rather than a simple assignment, but it works. | |
PatrickP61 14-Jul-2009 [16259] | Thanks Brian, I had changed the APPEND2 to REPEND with the proper [ ] which seems to do the same thing as APPEND APPEND. repend blk ['label ajoin ["Field " n]] repend blk ['field form first+ fields] repend blk ['button "Change"] Thanks! |
BrianH 14-Jul-2009 [16260] | REPEND has more overhead than chained APPEND. |
PatrickP61 14-Jul-2009 [16261] | Didn't know that!!! |
BrianH 14-Jul-2009 [16262] | REPEND creates an intermediate block - it doesn't REDUCE in place like APPLY, since it is mezzanine. |
PatrickP61 14-Jul-2009 [16263] | Brian, If I wanted APPEND2 to take on the value of APPEND APPEND, how would I do that? I tried APPEND2: [append append] but it is not what I wanted. I also tried APPEND2: 'append 'append but still not right? What is the proper way to have APPEND2 take on the APPEND APPEND so that when you run DEMO, it resolves correctly? |
BrianH 14-Jul-2009 [16264] | Make a function named append2: append2: func [blk val1 val2] [append/only append/only blk :val1 :val2] |
PatrickP61 14-Jul-2009 [16265] | Oh so you first need to take a look at the append function like HELP APPEND, then define another function to pass along the same parms etc with the APPEND function in it. so then you could also say this: append2: func [blk val1 val2] [append append blk :val1 :val2] (without the /only refinement) I mean to say is that the above could also work, right? |
BrianH 14-Jul-2009 [16266] | Yes, but I think you want the /only refinement in this case. |
PatrickP61 14-Jul-2009 [16267] | got it! -- Thank you |
BrianH 14-Jul-2009 [16268] | You don't need to replicate the type spec of the arguments since this is just a helper wrapper function. |
Pekr 15-Jul-2009 [16269x2] | Can R3 be run in CGI mode? There seems to be -c command line switch, but no CGI helper functions, nor system/options/cgi path .... |
IIRC Carl posted some short notice on that, but can't find it. I would like to start testing it, e.g. the speed of page build in comparison to R2. | |
Henrik 15-Jul-2009 [16271] | Pekr: http://www.rebol.net/r3blogs/0182.html |
Pekr 15-Jul-2009 [16272x3] | Thanks, just found it too :-) |
Disappointed by outcome of latest blog. Binary conversion issues are still a catastrophe. We were supposed to get it right and easy, ok? | |
Writing a reaction ... | |
BrianH 15-Jul-2009 [16275] | Using issue! to encode binaries is a disaster. We need better conversion functions, not syntax tricks. |
Pekr 15-Jul-2009 [16276] | then issue is completly usless type - remove it |
BrianH 15-Jul-2009 [16277] | It's useful as a syntax type. We are thinking of making issue! a unique and immutable string as well, with supposed modifications generating a new issue!. It would be like words without binding or as many syntax limitations. |
Pekr 15-Jul-2009 [16278x2] | I put my reasoning into blog post ... |
hmm, Carl dismissed #1113. I wonder if 'bind is used so often, that he was afraid of overloading it, and introduced new mezzanine instead? Was that really necessary? Another one to learn ... | |
BrianH 15-Jul-2009 [16280] | Apparently he considers initializaton to be out-of-scope for BIND. Oh well, it might have been cleaner - we'll see. |
Pekr 15-Jul-2009 [16281] | BrianH: is there a bug ticket for?: >> to-issue #{0001} == #?? ... I did not understand from your blog post, if it is supposed to be fixed already, so the ticket exists, or not .... |
BrianH 16-Jul-2009 [16282] | I mistook the problem you were proposing for one that had already been fixed :) |
Pekr 16-Jul-2009 [16283x4] | yes, but is above a bug? Should be reported, no? :-) |
ah, damned, latest time related changes brought back so called RED ICONS problem once again :-) We are still not reporting timezones correctly, ignoring summer time .... | |
Ah, actually quite the reverse. The problem of R2 is gone. Summer shift time is different date each year .... R3 works correctly, R2 does not ... | |
That's cool - even a73 was broken - when you set time back to winter time, it reported wrong zone information. a74 works correctly. | |
BrianH 16-Jul-2009 [16287x3] | Pekr, the above is not a bug. Your proposed change would be the bug. The issue! type is a string type, not a binary type. |
We don't want to encourage any tendency to see issue! as a replacement for binary!, especially since issue! is a collection of Unicode codepoints internally, not bytes. The issue! type is also poor for binary conversions, due to the fact that it was designed for other things. It works well for what it was designed for, though there are proposals to make it work better for that (the unique string stuff mentioned earlier). | |
I really don't understand your attempt to make issue! be a binary conversion device. It never worked as well as binary! for that, nor is there any reason to expect that to change. Why don't you want to use well-designed binary conversion functions, rather than bad issue! tricks? The functions could even be backported to R2. | |
older newer | first last |