World: r3wp
[!REBOL3]
older newer | first last |
Andreas 22-Jan-2011 [7275x2] | But the terminology underlying the boxing process actually is useful, namely value types and reference types. |
The immediate! typeset in R3 captures (or at least tries to) the former. | |
BrianH 22-Jan-2011 [7277] | And we didn't make a typeset for the latter because not existing in the former is enough. |
Andreas 22-Jan-2011 [7278x3] | And Ladislav's "Identify" article is exceedingly useful in defining meaningful dimensions of the term "value" in REBOL's context. |
Specifying a "REBOL value" as the sum of it's attributes, for example. | |
One attribute common to all REBOL values being type. Other attributes being type-dependent. | |
BrianH 22-Jan-2011 [7281] | Yup. Works great until you try to use "value" in a sentence, because of English's ambiguity :( |
Andreas 22-Jan-2011 [7282x3] | Even the actual "payload data" of a REBOL value is a type-dependent attribute. |
(unset! or none! values having no such "payload data", for example.) | |
And now of course the problem is, that we refer to different entities as "value", depending on context. Amongst those entities often referred to as "value" are: - the "REBOL value", as defined above - the "payload data" of a "REBOL value" - the "value slot" implementation detail | |
Oldes 23-Jan-2011 [7285x3] | Is there a way how to mold error into nice looking string? |
I mean... I can do: >> if error? err: try [1 / 0][probe err false] make error! [ code: 400 type: 'Math id: 'zero-divide arg1: none arg2: none arg3: none near: [/ 0] where: [/ try] ] == false but what if I would like to form the error message to look like if the error is really evaluated: >> do err ** Math error: attempt to divide by zero ** Where: / try ** Near: / 0 | |
Can we have the error message formater available or is it hidden for some security or other reason? | |
Kaj 23-Jan-2011 [7288] | I format them myself |
Oldes 23-Jan-2011 [7289] | how... do you have a list of all available error ids? |
Pavel 23-Jan-2011 [7290x2] | is there any idea how to place an break point int code for debugging reason, and release it (continue)? |
int = into | |
Sunanda 23-Jan-2011 [7292] | Oldes - you can try to grab them out of here, but not sure how easy that will be: probe system/catalog/errors |
Oldes 23-Jan-2011 [7293x5] | thanks... that's what I was looking for. |
Pavel... I usually use ASK with any value/message as a break point while debugging. Or just PROBE is I don't need to stop the evaluation. | |
Sunanda: not so easy, require some binding. | |
So far I have this: my-attempt: funct[code /local val][ either error? set/any 'val try code [ val: to-object val do bind [ print rejoin [ "!! " val/type " error: " reduce system/catalog/errors/(val/type)/(val/id) #"^/" "!! Where: " val/where #"^/" ;"!! Near: " val/near #"^/" ] ] val false ][ :val ] ] my-attempt [debase #ff] my-attempt [1 / 0] but not perfect... the Near and Where info is modified :-/ | |
How to convert issue! to binary! in R3? I was using debase in R2, but it's not working anymore (I guess because of unicode). | |
Henrik 23-Jan-2011 [7298x2] | small observation: >> any-word? #a == true |
that is possibly why it no longer works. | |
Oldes 23-Jan-2011 [7300] | hm.. so debase/base next to-string #ff 16 |
Pavel 23-Jan-2011 [7301] | 2 Oldes Great idea thanks |
Maxim 23-Jan-2011 [7302] | Oldes, wasn't there a function in R3 which allows you to get the string from an error...directly? |
Oldes 23-Jan-2011 [7303] | I was using this function in R2: parse-error: func[ error [object!] /local type id arg1 arg2 arg3 where err-desc ][ type: error/type id: error/id where: mold get/any in error 'where either any [ unset? get/any in error 'arg1 unset? get/any in error 'arg2 unset? get/any in error 'arg3 ][ arg1: arg2: arg3: "(missing value)" ][ arg1: error/arg1 arg2: error/arg2 arg3: error/arg3 ] err-desc: system/error/:type rejoin [ "** " err-desc/type ": " reduce either block? err-desc/:id [ bind system/error/:type/:id 'arg1 ][ err-desc/:id ] newline "** Where: " where newline "** Near: " mold error/near ] ] >> f: does [1 / 0] >> if error? err: try [f][print parse-error disarm err] ** Math Error: Attempt to divide by zero ** Where: f ** Near: [1 / 0] In R3 the WHERE and NEAR report is different |
BrianH 23-Jan-2011 [7304] | Plus, there is a long-term CC ticket about the off-by-one Near for operator-generated errors. |
Oldes 23-Jan-2011 [7305] | Yes.. I just wanted to write, that the NEAR is the main problem. |
Kaj 24-Jan-2011 [7306x4] | I just have this: |
unless rebol3? [result: disarm :result] unless silent [ print "ERROR" prin "ID: " probe result/id prin "In: " probe result/arg1 prin "Near: " probe result/near if rebol3? [prin "Where: " probe result/where] ] | |
With REBOL3? predefined | |
Seems I'm only missing the textual description | |
Gabriele 24-Jan-2011 [7310] | Oldes, a perhaps simpler version for R2 is: http://www.rebol.it/power-mezz/mezz/form-error.html I thought FORM was supposed to be able to do the same thing on R3, not implemented yet? |
Oldes 24-Jan-2011 [7311] | You are right... simple FORM err works: >> error? err: try [1 / 0] == true >> form err == {** Math error: attempt to divide by zero ** Where: / try ** Near: / 0 } |
Kaj 24-Jan-2011 [7312] | Oh, cool |
Andreas 26-Jan-2011 [7313] | Anyone happens to know whether UNIQUE is guaranteed to be stable for blocks? I.e. if we're guaranteed that the result block has the elements in the same order they first appeared in the original block? |
Maxim 26-Jan-2011 [7314] | in my tests (which I did this week) it was stable in R2. |
Andreas 26-Jan-2011 [7315] | This is R3. |
BrianH 26-Jan-2011 [7316x2] | SORT isn't stable in R3, but UNIQUE uses hash tables, not SORT. |
>> unique reduce [use [c] [a: 'c] use [c] [b: 'c]] == [c] >> same? first unique reduce [use [c] [a: 'c] use [c] [b: 'c]] a == true >> same? first unique reduce [use [c] [a: 'c] use [c] [b: 'c]] b == false This seems to be pretty consistent. | |
Andreas 26-Jan-2011 [7318x3] | It currently seems to be stable, yes. |
My question is if anyone knows whether we are actually guaranteed that it is. | |
(In which case it should be mentioned in the docs.) | |
BrianH 26-Jan-2011 [7321] | Given how it's implemented, I don't see how it could be other than first-come-first-included. |
Andreas 26-Jan-2011 [7322x3] | What about if it's implemented differently? |
In other words: | |
Is it a bug if UNIQUE is not stable. | |
older newer | first last |