World: r3wp
[!REBOL3-OLD1]
older newer | first last |
Paul 13-Dec-2009 [20178] | But I didn't have mingw in my path. I think that was the problem. |
BrianH 13-Dec-2009 [20179] | Ah, that would do it. The MinGW installer says it's going to set the path, but it fails at doing so. You have to do it yourself. |
Paul 13-Dec-2009 [20180] | Yeah, I don't care for the instructions we have for mingw. We shouldn't have to copy the mingw32-make.exe file to make.exe. We should just have to go to the rebol directory and type mingw32-make and be done with it. |
Maxim 14-Dec-2009 [20181] | R3 is really starting to grow on me :-D |
Steeve 14-Dec-2009 [20182] | I caught the same disease. I think that is unfortunately incurable. |
Maxim 14-Dec-2009 [20183x3] | this line brought a smile to my face: retrieve: does [take/last data] |
My only problem with R3 right now is that there is no codec for text reading . This means I can't properly import C files for example, unless I convert them to utf-8 with something else first. Has anyone done (or started to work on) a simple character mapping engine? | |
the new bitset! datatype is absolutely fantastic! we can actually USE it now ;-) before it was basically just a parse accelerator | |
Pekr 15-Dec-2009 [20186x2] | guys, to make things clear for me - recent efforts - if someone reports, that R3 compiles on system XY, does it mean that we are able to build R3 on such a platform = it is build and usable on such a platform? Or are we reporting that Carl is able to compile just DLL on a target platform? |
Because if it is a former, it means that in 3 weeks we ported actual REBOL version (even if pre-beta) to more platforms, than R2 got to in last 10 years :-) | |
Henrik 15-Dec-2009 [20188] | I think we need a simple document or FAQ that answers what it takes to port R3 to a completely new CPU/OS platform. Just 10-15 bulletpoints. |
Pekr 15-Dec-2009 [20189] | there will be of-course difference in porting Core, vs. for .e.g View ... |
Maxim 15-Dec-2009 [20190] | pekr, once carl can build a dynamic library on a platform, someone can do the rest, using the common host code. as most alternative OSes support some level of unix C libraries, the adaptation of the host code should not be a big issue. since the code is based on ANSI 90, just about every platform out there supports that. and yes, on every platform that Carl has compiled the host in the last weeks, this means R3 runs and is usable on that platform. |
btiffin 15-Dec-2009 [20191] | HOST KIT FOR LINUX! And I'm three days behind already. Why didn't anyone send a memo to read the blog? :) Woohoo, back to REBOL programming... And just so ya know, when I embed this in OC it'll be CORE BOL ;) |
Maxim 15-Dec-2009 [20192] | :-D |
Maxim 16-Dec-2009 [20193] | what's the best way to convert a hex string to a decimal value in R3? |
Sunanda 16-Dec-2009 [20194] | One way is to start with an issue! rather than hex >> to-integer #100 == 256 |
Maxim 16-Dec-2009 [20195] | perfect... just what I needed thanks :-) |
PeterWood 16-Dec-2009 [20196] | I got some strange results with decima! |
Sunanda 16-Dec-2009 [20197] | But check it works for large values first..... |
PeterWood 16-Dec-2009 [20198] | >> to integer! #{2710} == 10000 >> to decimal! #{2710} == 4.94065645841247e-320 |
Sunanda 16-Dec-2009 [20199] | decimal is broken with issue. |
PeterWood 16-Dec-2009 [20200] | >> to decimal! to binary! 10000 == 4.94065645841247e-320 >> to integer! to binary! 10000 == 10000 |
Sunanda 16-Dec-2009 [20201] | Probably explained by this Curecode report http://www.curecode.org/rebol3/ticket.rsp?id=547 |
PeterWood 16-Dec-2009 [20202] | There is something that doesn't seem correct about the following: : >> to decimal! to integer! to binary! 10000 == 10000.0 >> to decimal! to binary! 10000 == 4.94065645841247e-320 |
Steeve 16-Dec-2009 [20203x2] | not a bug, as explained in the curecode ticket |
decimals and integers are not hard coded the same way in a binary | |
Micha 16-Dec-2009 [20205] | 00 |
Ladislav 16-Dec-2009 [20206] | Peter: >> to binary! 10000.0 == #{40C3880000000000} >> to binary! 10000 == #{0000000000002710} Why do you think they should be the same? |
PeterWood 16-Dec-2009 [20207x2] | I don't. It's the behaviour of to-decimal that I don't understand; >> to decimal! #{0000000000002710} == 4.94065645841247e-320 |
In R2 this would raise a script error: >> to decimal! to binary! 10000 ** Script Error: Invalid argument: #{3130303030} ** Near: to decimal! to binary! 10000 | |
Geomol 16-Dec-2009 [20209] | In R2: >> to binary! 10000 == #{3130303030} So we get the ascii value of each digit in the number. In R3: >> to binary! 10000 == #{0000000000002710} The number is seen as a 64-bit integer, and we get the binary representation of that. |
Ladislav 16-Dec-2009 [20210x2] | then why do you think, that this is a bug?: >> to decimal! to binary! 10000.0 == 10000.0 |
If you want to know more, read http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Decimals-64 | |
BrianH 16-Dec-2009 [20212] | Maxim: "what's the best way to convert a hex string to a decimal value in R3?" - Try this: >> pi == 3.14159265358979 >> enbase/base to-binary pi 16 == "400921FB54442D18" >> to-decimal debase/base "400921FB54442D18" 16 == 3.14159265358979 >> to-decimal debase/base enbase/base to-binary pi 16 16 == 3.14159265358979 You asked for the best way: No method that uses the issue! type for binary conversions could be considered the best way. |
Sunanda 16-Dec-2009 [20213] | Not sure what specific data transformation Maxim needs. I'd be interested in the REBOL code to do would would seem to be a simple transformation: How do I get from: #{0100} ;; two bytes of binary, perhaps read from an external file to: 256 ;; the equivalent integer (given the implicit endian assumptions) |
Steeve 16-Dec-2009 [20214x2] | if it's for storing usage, then restoring, perhaps the base 64 format is enough. >> enbase to-binary pi == "QAkh+1RELRg=" >> to-decimal debase enbase to-binary pi == 3.14159265358979 |
and it take less size (besides, it has always the same length) | |
BrianH 16-Dec-2009 [20216x2] | Ah, it's those implicit endian assumptions that can trip you up, Sunanda. But here's a good method that for big-endian 64-bit on R3: >> to-integer #{0100} == 256 |
that for -> that works for | |
Sunanda 16-Dec-2009 [20218] | Thanks, Brian......I'd tried that, and it did not work for me. Must have been having one of those blond moments, because it works now :) |
Steeve 16-Dec-2009 [20219] | newb instant ;-) |
BrianH 16-Dec-2009 [20220] | It should work for 32-bit integers too, but there isn't yet a build that supports them (though the source does). |
Steeve 16-Dec-2009 [20221] | U mean something like this ? >> to-integer #{01000000} == 16777216 |
BrianH 16-Dec-2009 [20222x3] | I mean 32-bit integer! type, not 32-bit binary encoding converting to the current 64-bit integer! type. |
It's supposed to be an R3 build option for embedded of legacy systems that don't support 64-bit integer math. | |
of -> or | |
Steeve 16-Dec-2009 [20225x3] | and my connversion is not exact, because we don't have the sign bit expansion |
Nice puzzle. Giving a signed 16bit binary integer, give the corresponding R3 integer. | |
A one-liner solution (without any test) would be appreciated | |
older newer | first last |