World: r3wp
[!REBOL3-OLD1]
older newer | first last |
Ladislav 9-Nov-2009 [19583] | yes, but (Rebol) integers are subset of integers too |
Geomol 9-Nov-2009 [19584] | Brian, regarding graphics, wouldn't it be normal to convert the floats to integers before doing the modulus calculation? I may be wrong, but I'm not sure, I would need float modulus in such application. |
Ladislav 9-Nov-2009 [19585] | so, integer! datatype comprises some integer numbers, therefore the real! datatype could comprise some real number IMO |
Geomol 9-Nov-2009 [19586] | In Python, they call them reals. In Lua, you just have numbers. Integers and floats are the same internally as far as I can see. |
Ladislav 9-Nov-2009 [19587] | Reals surely is a much more appropriate name, than decimals |
Geomol 9-Nov-2009 [19588] | Thanks! :) I think the same. |
Ladislav 9-Nov-2009 [19589] | ...but I bet, that I and Geomol would be OK with IEEE-754! or a similarly "ugly" name, which may really scare some people |
BrianH 9-Nov-2009 [19590] | I still think float! is the most appropriate, due to that significant "subset of" thing. |
Ladislav 9-Nov-2009 [19591] | but, if you want be that precise, you cannot use the integer! name either |
Geomol 9-Nov-2009 [19592] | make IEEE-754! exp 1 oh no! :) |
Henrik 9-Nov-2009 [19593] | I agree on real! |
Geomol 9-Nov-2009 [19594] | A problem with "float" might be, that many will think 32-bit right away. And we have 64 bits to play with. |
BrianH 9-Nov-2009 [19595] | Geomol, it wouldn't be normal to convert to integers first if you are trying to manage rounding and the specific integer values are only an end-device approximation of real valued proportions and coordinates. In other cases, converting to integers would be appropriate. It varies. |
Ladislav 9-Nov-2009 [19596] | nevertheless, I guess, now it is not real to require real! as the real name :-D |
BrianH 9-Nov-2009 [19597] | A 64bit float is still a float. There are 128bit IEEE754 floats too (and perhaps 256bit, I don't know). |
Geomol 9-Nov-2009 [19598] | :) |
BrianH 9-Nov-2009 [19599] | No 256bit yet - it will come soon, I'm sure :) |
Ladislav 9-Nov-2009 [19600] | there is a "slight" difference between "real" and "float" - both can be used, but "real" is more understandable for a layman than "float" - where does it float? |
Geomol 9-Nov-2009 [19601] | Another thing, we have pi: >> pi == 3.14159265358979 Would it be an idea to have e equal to: >> exp 1 == 2.71828182845905 I mean, we can create pi ourselves with arccosine/radians -1 , so why is pi there? And if it is, why isn't e there? |
BrianH 9-Nov-2009 [19602x2] | That is what I like about the name. A programmer will understand the difference. REBOL is made for programmers, not laymen. We finally disabused ourselves of that delusion. |
When do you use e when not doing exponents? Not familiar with e's use - I took calculus in 1987 and haven't used most of it since. | |
Ladislav 9-Nov-2009 [19604x2] | yes, but in the above case both "real" and "float" are actually of the "same information value" for an expert - not knowing from the name neither how many bits they use, nor what is the base (2 or 10) |
re E: Rebol has LOG-E, so it would be natural to have E defined, the problem I see is, that the name is "too short", so Carl wanted to leave it for "common use" | |
BrianH 9-Nov-2009 [19606] | Ah, but "float" is a keyword for programmers that implies binary floating-point numbers (usually IEEE754), while "real" is a keyword for what floating point numbers (binary or decimal) *appproximate*. You know, the real world. The "real" pi doesn't have a finite binary representation. That distinction is why I like "float" instead. All moot now though - we are stuck with decimal!. |
Geomol 9-Nov-2009 [19607x2] | We could call integers for Integral, like Python have numbers.Integral (just kiddin) I like integer! and real! (I may change my mind.) |
Should the hyperbolic math functions be part of REBOL? Like the C functions cosh, sinh, tanh. Many languages have them (I've checked Lua, Python and Ruby). | |
GiuseppeC 9-Nov-2009 [19609x4] | Pekr as for HTTPS protocol I agree with the other people here. Lets some external developer do the work once the basis is complete. |
I was very amazed to read that even Gabriele sometime gets no answers from Carl. He is one of the closest developers to RT ! | |
However, if we could summarize 2009, it has been a nice year for REBOL. Many things have evolved and I have not seen the development blocked for more than a week. I don't know how many people are still at RT but I suppose the number is quite low and I think we must congrat with Carl. | |
If we think about the needing for money and time a company and a family needs (talking about Carl's Family and RT) I am really suprised to see how much work has been spent over REBOL. Sometime I even ask myself how it could be possible ? Has Carl some hidden treasure ? Has he found a way to split himself so we have 2 Carl and not one ? :-) | |
Pekr 9-Nov-2009 [19613x3] | I asked Carl to react on reboltutorial article and to add old R3 architecture doc I remember from the past. It is on R3 rebol.com page now .... |
ppl were constantly confusing and merging R3 product with R2 marketing, although the model was explained many times .... | |
I am glad the doc is back ... | |
Pekr 10-Nov-2009 [19616] | Changes to high resolution time in R3 - http://www.rebol.net/r3blogs/0293.html |
Jerry 11-Nov-2009 [19617x3] | Is there a way that I can get the number of parameters of a function in R3? So I can do this: >> num-of-parameters :print == 1 >> num-of-parameters :now == 2 |
should be: >> num-of-parameters :now == 0 | |
num-of-parameters: funct [ f [ any-function! ] ] [ clear find spec: spec-of :f /local remove-each element spec [ any [ string? element block? element ] ] length? spec ] | |
Pekr 11-Nov-2009 [19620] | Important - Finalizing read and write - http://www.rebol.net/r3blogs/0294.html |
PeterWood 11-Nov-2009 [19621x3] | Jerry - you can use words-of instead of spec-of. It doesn't return the comments. >> a: func [b "comment" c "comment" /local d] [] >> b: func [c d e f /local z] [] >> n-o-p: func [f] [length? copy/part spec: words-of :f find spec /local] >> n-o-p :a == 2 >> n-o-p :b == 4 Sory for the cryptic code. I had to keep it to a single line in the R3 console. |
The code above doesn't handle 0 parameters though :-( | |
... and more importantly it doesn't handle refinements either. What would you expect num-of-parameters to return for the following function: a: func [b c /d e /f g /local x y z] | |
Jerry 12-Nov-2009 [19624] | clear find spec: spec-of :f /local ... can move the refinements part |
PeterWood 12-Nov-2009 [19625] | Here is a version using parse: >> n-o-p: func [f] [ct: 0 parse words-of f [some [word! (++ ct) | refinement! thru end]] ct] >> n-o-p :now == 0 >> a: func [b c /local e] [] >> n-o-p :a == 2 >> x: func [b c /d e /f g /local x y z] [ >> n-o-p :x == 2 |
Geomol 12-Nov-2009 [19626x4] | A version without parse: >> npars: func [f /local w] [ w: words-of :f length? copy/part w any [find w refinement! tail w] ] >> npars :print == 1 >> npars :now == 0 >> npars :insert == 2 |
Some thought of naming. How should such a function be named the REBOL way? number-of-parameters seems a bit long. I sometimes write functions, that return the number-of something. I come to think of # as being number-of, but # in the start mean an issue! datatype. What about allowing # in the end of words? Like: parameters#: func [ .... Or is that too ugly? | |
A bit like we have ? in the end of many words: length? tail? none? ... | |
Maybe not pluralis, but just parameter#: func [ ... | |
Izkata 12-Nov-2009 [19630] | num-args, num-of-args ? |
Henrik 12-Nov-2009 [19631] | args-of |
BrianH 12-Nov-2009 [19632] | Remember that there is nothing special about the /local refinement or the words that follow it. All /local is is an option that you aren't using, and in that is no different than any other option you aren't using. In order to determine the number of args that a function takes, you need to specify which options you will be using in the call, perhaps by providing a path! instead of a function reference. Otherwise, just use WORDS-OF. |
older newer | first last |