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

World: r3wp

[!REBOL3-OLD1]

Henrik
20-Oct-2009
[19122]
That could perhaps be useful. Generally there has been some level 
of index concurrency control with multiple series missing in R2, 
like being able to do a FORALL on multiple series simultaneously. 
I can't remember if R3 solves any of that, because it's been discussed 
quite a long time ago.
BrianH
20-Oct-2009
[19123]
This is difficlt to do efficiently.
Henrik
20-Oct-2009
[19124]
I know. I just want less plumbing :-)
BrianH
20-Oct-2009
[19125]
FIND/all and FIND/first could save tons of time - exponential time.
Pekr
20-Oct-2009
[19126]
So let's be sure to push on Carl in that regard, to get those two 
implemented. I am not sure Carl will implement stuff by the project 
plan.
Henrik
20-Oct-2009
[19127]
so, FORALL is native in R3. that might make it harder to change. 
Otherwise I would suggest, since it uses a word for input series 
to use a block for multiple series:


forall [series1 series2 series3] [print [index? series1 index? series2 
index? series3]]
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
...
BrianH
20-Oct-2009
[19128]
The cases where you have to work on many series of all the same length 
are rare.
Henrik
20-Oct-2009
[19129]
I run into this curiously often, which is why I suggested it. It's 
useful where you need to get a block of  blocks "turned 90 degrees".
BrianH
20-Oct-2009
[19130]
The DB people call that column storage :)
Robert
20-Oct-2009
[19131]
Yes, and you often have to switch between row & column pocessing.
Henrik
22-Oct-2009
[19132]
A91 released with some UTF-16 support
Pekr
22-Oct-2009
[19133]
A92 you mean :-)
Henrik
22-Oct-2009
[19134]
I'm tired :-) Went too late to bed.
Graham
22-Oct-2009
[19135x2]
Went to bed too late :)
That's part of the Rebol life ...
Henrik
22-Oct-2009
[19137x2]
Reading the bitsets document, says:


Create a bitset large enough to holds bits up to 1000 and set bit 
1000:

	bits: make bitset! 1000  ; note that bit 1000 is set

But in A92:

>> make bitset! 1000
== make bitset! #{
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
}

Is this right?
added as bug#1290
Chris
22-Oct-2009
[19139x3]
Another shot at reworking my XML loader for R3: http://bit.ly/xml_rebol
- works mostly, try:

	rss: load-xml/dom http://www.rebol.com/article/carl-rss.xml
	entries: rss/get-by-tag <item>
	foreach entry entries [probe entry/get <title>]

However trips at the first line of the first example:

	html: load-xml/dom http://w3.org

as follows:

	>> do http://www.ross-gill.com/r/r3xml.r
	Script: "XML for REBOL 3" Version: 0.2.0 Date: 22-Oct-2009
	>> html: load-xml/dom http://w3.org

 ** Access error: protocol error: "Redirect to other host - requires 
 custom handling"


	>> html: load-xml/dom http://www.w3.org
	Segmentation fault

On 2.100.90.2.5
Appears to be OK on 2.100.92.3.1
Boiled it down to: parse "^(A000)" [remove #" "]
Maxim
22-Oct-2009
[19142]
Added an idea on the bitset complement dilema, worth considering 
IMHO.

its a logical extension of the new bitset notation
Chris
22-Oct-2009
[19143]
Is 'load/next supposed to return binary as the second part of the 
result?
Pekr
23-Oct-2009
[19144]
Max - what you are proposing - could it serve to support collation 
mechanism? Because what we still lack is to support specific collation 
sorting - unless it is implemented, I refuse to claim, that R3 supports 
Unicode ...
Maxim
23-Oct-2009
[19145x3]
ah... well, I was just proposing a way to prevent bitsets scaling 
to2^16 bits when you join them in specific ways.
created ticket #1292, addresses a few problems date!  handling of 
time.
if you look at the ticket, what I asked for really is usefull and 
shouldn't be very hard for Carl to address.
Henrik
23-Oct-2009
[19148x2]
Those should probably be split in 3 reports.
I'll let you do that, since you wrote the original report. :-)
Maxim
23-Oct-2009
[19150x4]
ok then....
actually... doing more tests.... I realize that the time is added 
to the date directly, not counting current time... which is actually 
proper, since I'm doing a set... not an addition.
so I'll change that bug report to a documentation one... cause it 
can be misleading until one understands it.
done...
Pekr
23-Oct-2009
[19154]
hmm, a bit too many crashes, recently, no? :-) Are unit testings 
still being done for releases?
Henrik
23-Oct-2009
[19155]
http://www.rebol.net/r3blogs/0280.html

Delayed init of built in modules.
Pekr
25-Oct-2009
[19156]
Per Twitter message, Carl seems to be working on interesting topic 
- Improving standard I/O to allow R3 to be used with redirections, 
CGI and other purposes.
Gabriele
25-Oct-2009
[19157]
this could be interesting to those building a "Try rebol" web page: 
http://www.masswerk.at/jsuix/
BrianH
26-Oct-2009
[19158]
Chris: "Is 'load/next supposed to return binary as the second part 
of the result?"

Yes. R3 source is defined as binary encoded in UTF-8, not as a string. 
LOAD/next of a dir or url which returns a block on read, or of a 
script-in-a-block will return a block reference as the next though.
Pekr
26-Oct-2009
[19159]
Stdio fixes and improvements - http://www.rebol.net/r3blogs/0281.html
Carl
26-Oct-2009
[19160]
Last week, Pekr asked if I would stop by.
Steeve
26-Oct-2009
[19161]
Hi master !
Carl
26-Oct-2009
[19162x4]
Hi Steeve. Quick response!
Unfortunately, I don't have time to read back over the older messages 
(and there are many), but... I have an idea:
We could do a Q&A type session.   It would be live.  We could use 
a new group if desired.  Perhaps put the date in the name.
It's not my intention to be difficult to reach.... but I do tend 
to get very focused when I'm working on specific things.
Steeve
26-Oct-2009
[19166]
Sure, we just need that others here, wake up
Carl
26-Oct-2009
[19167]
We can adjust the timing for that... to some degree.
Pekr
26-Oct-2009
[19168]
Carl - we wanted to address priorities
Steeve
26-Oct-2009
[19169x2]
One question about the further compressed inlined modules. what sort 
of compression format do you intend to tuse ?
oups, sorry
Pekr
26-Oct-2009
[19171]
there is !REBOL3 Priorities group here ... but - as far as my understanding 
goes, you might not agree to requests ...