World: r3wp

Eh?  I've seen you here most days!  :)

I pop in, but haven't had much time to code. When I've been here 
lately I'm too exhausted to program.

In that case you have a list of jobs a mile long to do ...

Well, yeah. So what else is new? :)

So, are you too exhausted today?  :)

I'll be on next week, but this is the first time in two weeks that 
I've been able to spend more than a few minutes at home and I'm taking 
a break.

It might be a good idea to patch in Cyphre's cookie handling support 
as well http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=my-http.r

Looks good :)

I think he might have an updated version as well. Worth pinging him 
if he doesn't check in here.

Doesn't seem to parse the cookies, just passes them through. Probably 
good enough for a low-level protocol.

Any updates here?

this seems to be an oddity to me

>> min 10x0 11x0
== 10x0
>> max 10x0 11x0
== 11x0
>> 10x0 > 11x0
** Script Error: Expected one of: pair! - not: pair!
** Near: 10x0 > 11x0

so to get a greater than we have to do

>> 10x0 = max 10x0 11x0
== false

Or use SORT and see which one comes first :)

SORT embodies different logic to the GREATER?, LESSER? (etc) when 
it comes to implementing ordering. And that can sometimes be useful, 
or at least, usable.

Sort nicely worked for me, when sorting IP addresses. I switched 
from string type to tupple type upon BrianH's suggestion :-) It was 
initially "easier" for me to keep IPs as strings, but I was just 
lazy to use native REBOL dtype :-)

Graham, afaict the direct comparators don't support pair! because 
there are situations where the answer is ambiguous:
>> 1x0 > 0x1
** Script error: cannot compare pair! with pair!
** Where: >
** Near: > 0x1

>> max 1x0 0x1
== 1x1

Always the same battle, Default behaviorists against Errors Creationists

Do you really want > and < to return none if they run into a ambiguous 
situation? Right now all of those functions return true or false.

Imagine all the code that would have to change if we switched to 
SQL-style 3-value logic :(

But yes, good point :)

No I want a default comparison scheme for pairs (even if it is not 
the one I think is the most usefull) . Error bombings are of no use

What about the comparison of euclidean distances of 2 coordinates 
?

Bring it up with Carl for R3, or suggest it in CureCode. This is 
all a little off-topic for this group anyways - we should be in Core.

I'll try sorting ..

You can't use sort !

sort 10x10 11x11

Use SORT/COMPARE if the default sort order doesn't word for your 
pairs.

sort [10x10 11x11]

oh yeah ...

SORT takes a block

sort uses the x coordinate

should have a sort/y :)

sort/compare pairs func [a b] [all [a/2 < b/2]]

uses the Y coord. Use whatever sorting scheme you like.

yeah .... I had sort/reverse

ALL [...] is of course wrong

too early in the morning ... not awake yet

func [a b] [a/2 < b/2] would have been better

Wait, I somewhere have a handy COMPARE function for writing custom 
sort functions ...

Ok, here it is:

compare: func [

    "Returns -1, 0 or 1 if the first value is lesser, equal, greater 
    than the second value."
    a b /else "Return NONE when equal (useful to chain COMPARE)"
][
    case [a < b -1 a > b 1 else [none] true 0]
]

sort/custom some-pairs func [a b] [compare/else a/2 b/2 compare a/1 
a/2]

That would stable sort Y first, then X for a/y = b/y. Just for exemple's 
sake.

I'd suggest that pair1 > pair2 if the sum of its parts are larger 
than pair2

is a pair is greater if it is further from 0x0

as the crow flies along the co-ordinate axis

but that could mean 100x0 = 0x100 :(

or [1x-2  = -2x1] :))

Christian, I am just compairing two pairs :)

: )   Ok, I see! And that's where SORT 10x10 11x11 came from ;-)

Just a simple issue!  .... I have an image and I want to see if I 
need to enlarge it or not to fit into my box