World: r3wp
[!REBOL3]
older newer | first last |
BrianH 17-May-2010 [3182] | The non-modifying version of EXCLUDE should be called EXCLUDING, if we want the part of speech right :) |
Anton 17-May-2010 [3183x2] | Hmm, EXCLUDING's not a bad way to avoid clashing meanings for EXCLUDE. |
A problem with INCLUDE is that it sounds like INSERT, but the functionality is APPEND (which is INSERT TAIL, ok). So what if we also want conditional INSERT ? I think we don't want it as often as APPEND, but it could be more flexible, allowing different positions to insert. | |
BrianH 17-May-2010 [3185] | Is it really so bad to do conditional code with conditional code? We have IF, EITHER and UNTIL for a reason. They are not awkward. |
Anton 17-May-2010 [3186x2] | It's not so bad, but it would be nice to have, if we could just come up with some good function names... |
It's a pity if the reason we don't add convenient functions like this is just because we haven't found good names for them. | |
Pekr 17-May-2010 [3188] | we have already weird naming conventions, e.g. in case of 'ajoin. So what about cinsert, cappend? ('"c" like conditional, or "a", to be compatible with 'ajoin) |
BrianH 17-May-2010 [3189] | Btw, "it's on my list" is more of a desperate cry for help nowadays. It's more of a "it's on my list to get done, because it's needed". Actually doing it myself is the last resort; getting someone else to do it is the preferred method. I'm more than happy to provide advice, but it's hard for me to budget time to program this myself. |
Anton 17-May-2010 [3190] | I was thinking of "cinsert" and "cappend" too. But note, "adjoin" is a normal existing english word, from Anglo-French "ajoindre". |
BrianH 17-May-2010 [3191] | That last resort seems to happen a lot though. |
Anton 17-May-2010 [3192] | Fair enough, Brian. You're handling many areas already. |
BrianH 17-May-2010 [3193] | Sorry, this isn't the ~Vent group :) |
Anton 17-May-2010 [3194] | Just looking in the thesaurus. Possible other names for INCLUDE / EXCLUDE: ENTAIL / OMIT <- ENTAIL good for conditional append. ADMIT / OMIT <- ADMIT good for conditional insert. Nice and short, eh? |
Pekr 17-May-2010 [3195] | I like explode/implode ... :-) |
BrianH 17-May-2010 [3196x2] | Looking over your %include.r docs again Ladislav, the only problems it has for R3 development (aside from function naming) is that it doesn't support collecting modules. Since all R3 development directly or indirectly uses R3's modules, it's only missing the main feature needed. But at least the rest is done, so adding module collection could be done by anyone who understands the semantic model of R3's modules well enough. |
That's not a long list of people at this point, but at least it's not just one person :) | |
Pekr 17-May-2010 [3198] | BrianH: so no free time on your part last days? |
Ladislav 17-May-2010 [3199] | The non-modifying version of EXCLUDE should be called EXCLUDING - for me this is as good as "EXPLODE", just a mess |
BrianH 17-May-2010 [3200] | Last 3 or 4 months. I've been averaging about 1 day a week in front of a computer. I spend more time in my car. |
Ladislav 17-May-2010 [3201] | 'EXCLUDE is corresponding well to 'SUBTRACT of 'DIVIDE, which are non-modifying either |
Pekr 17-May-2010 [3202x2] | Then you need a laptom in your car .... :-) |
laptop | |
Ladislav 17-May-2010 [3204] | I see EXCLUDE as more useful than UNION, actually, when comparing the usefulness of set operations |
BrianH 17-May-2010 [3205] | I spend all my time solving problems now. My mind is what needs budgeting, more than time or money. A laptop in the car wouldn't help with that. |
Ladislav 17-May-2010 [3206] | (it is even possible to define UNION using EXCLUDE, while the reverse is impossible) |
BrianH 17-May-2010 [3207x2] | Ladislav, I don't really need to get into the naming mess. I have needed the functionality I described for the modifying INCLUDE and EXCLUDE for a long time now, especially as modifying set functions rather than just single values like ALTER. But I can continue to get by without. And it turns out that the set functions often need to allocate another series anyways, for hashing, so the modifying versions probably don't have enough of a benefit to be worth adding. |
However, that doesn't mean that I would call your preprocessor INCLUDE in the standard distribution. We need a superset of PREBOL to *be* the new PREBOL. The functionality we are missing is the bare minimum that we need to make it useful for R3 development, so if we make a standard preprocessor it would have to have that feature. And if your %include.r is a better codebase to start with, cool. | |
Ladislav 17-May-2010 [3209x3] | certainly, the name of the function is not the most important property of it |
...and the directives are standard | |
(except for COMMENT, but that looks reasonable to me, alghough I am not the one who requested that) | |
BrianH 17-May-2010 [3212] | Right. For one thing, the actual including is done in response to the directives. The function is preprocessing, and its results are not actually included at the point of call :) |
Ladislav 17-May-2010 [3213] | the function is two-purpose: *preprocess *plus, eventually, if desired, do the result of the preprocessing |
BrianH 17-May-2010 [3214x3] | The R3 preprocessor would most of all need to transform script modules to inline modules, add the code to resolve the binding issues, and especially handle mixins. All of the traditional PREBOL functionality is secondary to that, and use of the directives will be more minimal. |
Mixins in R3 often serve the purpose that #include did in PREBOL, but currently need to be loaded from files at runtime. We need a preprocessor in order to get the mixin functionality from embedded modules. This is what is needed to do the R3 equivalent of encapping (host builds). | |
If I have to do this, I won't even be able to start until some time in June - I'm mostly out of town this month. | |
sqlab 17-May-2010 [3217] | Samsung announced a bada Developer Challenge developer.bada.com/challenge. How far away is a host-kit for ARM devices? |
Graham 17-May-2010 [3218x2] | as far away as it was a few months ago |
Carl's last words on the subject "let's do it" | |
Pekr 17-May-2010 [3220] | Carl's not available ATM ... |
Ladislav 17-May-2010 [3221] | ...handle mixins... - is there already any documentation describing mixins? |
sqlab 17-May-2010 [3222] | At the beginning of the year I was almost ready to bet that we will get it until June.( |
Pekr 17-May-2010 [3223x2] | We all were. The first negative sign for me was, when Carl announced, that he is not going to post montly updates. Those were much appreciated and motivating. I knew, that it means just one thing - Carl going into the cave mode. R3 is almost on-hold for 5 months .... |
I hope someone will soon post something on a more positive note :-) | |
Henrik 17-May-2010 [3225] | stop being obsessive about deadlines and you'll feel much better. |
Pekr 17-May-2010 [3226] | it's not about deadlines, it is about any sign of project management, coordinated efforts, estimated milestones, defined featureset .... |
Maxim 17-May-2010 [3227] | Carl is working on bug-fixing, did two releases last week, and is working on extracting view from the core, which he has stated a while ago. What do you want Carl to do more? AFAIK, there is nothing "unknown" right now. we are simply waiting for Carl to finish this cumbersome task before any of the above *can* be done. so far, Carl has been telling us everything he's doing every step of the way. some things just take time. its not as if Carl is waiting doing nothing. He's been working his ass off tackling huge items on the list. Some of the very things you (and many of us) have been "complaining" about for years. |
Pekr 17-May-2010 [3228x2] | two releases last week? where? |
Maxim - I just think that you know nothing ... | |
Steeve 17-May-2010 [3230] | the atmosphere is a bit tense lately |
Maxim 17-May-2010 [3231] | some people like it that way ;-) |
older newer | first last |