World: r3wp

imean not logical neither easy to remember.

would it really be a pain to support the usual 0xff format?... it 
doesn't really clash w anything i think. only numbers can start w 
zero anyway...

R3 is much easier to use with binary than R2.

just use a binary string.

>> to-integer #{ffffffff}
== 4294967295

thx

0xff format
: it does clash with the pair! datatype.

true.. damn :)

on the other hand:
>> to-integer #ffffff              
== 16777215
>> to-integer #{ffffff}
== 16777215

the issues is sort of a syntax sugar, the binary string is the actual 
value in ram.   so you can do things like:

a: #{0f0f0f0f}
b: 3520188881     
>> a and b
== #{01010101}

but you can't with issues:

>> b: #d1d1d1d1
== #d1d1d1d1
>> a and b

** Script error: and does not allow issue! for its value2 argument

but if u have to turn it into integer anyway, then the issue is shorter

the only  real thing to be aware of is that to-binary of an integer 
will give you a 64 bit binary!

>> to-binary 22
== #{0000000000000016}

here is my ObjectID routine a'la mongodb.

wondering how much simpler could it be in r3?...  not that i could 
use r3 any time soon for production stuff, but i would love to, of 
course

  rejoin probe reduce [
    to-hex date-to-epoch now

    enbase/base copy/part checksum/method system/network/host 'md5 3 
    16
    skip to-hex access-os 'pid 4
    skip to-hex random/secure to-integer #ffffff 2
  ]

Geomol, the ticket for the lit-path problem you mentioned is here: 
http://issue.cc/r3/1434

Brian, the ticket you mentioned is not related to the problem Geomol 
mentioned.

Question: how many REBOL users prefer:

a: make object! [b: does ["OK"]]
a/b ; == "OK"
do 'a/b ; == a/b

versus

a: make object! [b: does ["OK"]]
a/b ; == "OK"
do 'a/b ; == "OK"

?

I prefer the latter

(seeing it as more convenient)

latter

And, how many users prefer:

a: make object! [b: does ["OK"]]
type? do in a 'b ; == function!

versus

a: make object! [b: does ["OK"]]
type? do in a 'b ; == string!

I prefer the latter again

The latters seems more logical to me in both cases.

The latters seems ok to me. But what if w is a word holding 'b or 
'a/b, as I was testing, in relation to the object a? This is what 
I get:

In R2:
>> a: make object! [b: does ["OK"]]
>> w: first ['b]
== 'b
>> type? :w
== lit-word!
>> a/:w

** Script Error: Invalid path value: b	; To me, that error is wrong 
worded, it should show 'b.
>> in a :w
== 'b		; Confused, as a doesn't hold any 'b
>> do in a :w
== 'b		; Why?
>> type? do in a :w
== lit-word!

Same in R3:
>> w: first ['b]
== 'b
>> type? :w
== lit-word!
>> a/:w

** Script error: cannot access :w in path a/:w		; Not sure about 
this error. Could be better, I think.
>> in a :w
== 'b			; ?
>> do in a :w
== b			; ??
>> type? do in a :w
== word!

And now the 'a/b:

In R2:
>> a: make object! [b: does ["OK"]]
>> w: first ['a/b]
== 'a/b
>> do w
== "OK"
>> do :w
== 'a/b

In R3:
>> a: make object! [b: does ["OK"]]
>> w: first ['a/b]
== 'a/b
>> do w
== 'a/b
>> do :w
== 'a/b

wrt:

And, how many users prefer:

a: make object! [b: does ["OK"]]
type? do in a 'b ; == function!
versus

a: make object! [b: does ["OK"]]
type? do in a 'b ; == string!

============================

the first should be supported via the 'GET word, so I'd say the later 
is better, otherwise, there is no point with 'GET. 

basically, this was perfect in R2, why did it change in R3?

seems like a bug

It changed because functions were getting executed when you were 
doing a word referring to a function, rather than doing the function 
itself.

Ladislav, that ticket was related because it explained that lit-words 
were active values and that the behavior was intentional. This can 
be changed if we decide differently, but it isn't currently a bug, 
it's intentional.

I understand that the change was intended, but currently, all the 
respondents prefer the original behaviour.

And no wonder they do. If a user calls the DO function, then it is 
expectable that functions, etc. get evaluated.

Yes. But that is doing the *function*, not doing a word that refers 
to the function.

It's the difference between a: :print and a: 'print.

As said, all the respondents above prefer the function to be evaluated 
when doing a word that refers to the function. The only way how you 
can influence it would be if you said you preferred the current behaviour 
as implemented in R3. Do you?

For that, absolutely. For the lit-word/lit-path thing, no.

I hope we get more answers, since it is weekend now.

http://issue.cc/r3/1881and http://issue.cc/r3/1882submitted

Regarding the example evaluating words above:

    lit-path: first ['a(b]
    do [lype? lit-path]


Which result do you prefer? As far as my preferences go, I prefer 
to obtain the lit-path! datatype

Correction: Regarding the example evaluating words above:

    lit-path: first ['a/b]
    do [type? lit-path]


Which result do you prefer? As far as my preferences go, I prefer 
to obtain the lit-path! datatypeRegarding the example evaluating 
words above:

    lit-path: first ['a(b]
    do [lype? lit-path]


Which result do you prefer? As far as my preferences go, I prefer 
to obtain the lit-path! datatype lit-path: first ['a/b]
    do [lype? lit-path]

This keyboard is getting me crazy, sorry

Correction: Regarding the example evaluating words above:

    lit-path: first ['a/b]
    do [type? lit-path]


Which result do you prefer? As far as my preferences go, I prefer 
to obtain the lit-path! datatype

(in R3 yout get the lit-path!, while in R2 the path! datatype)

I prefer lit-path!. The same for lit-words:

	lit-word: first ['a]
	do [type? lit-word]


I prefer that to return lit-word!. It's only, if the word being looked 
up (lit-word in this example) is a function (or native, op, action, 
...) that further computation should occur, I think.

Makes sense

Actually I ran into problems related to this, when programming the 
bparse function. At one point, I need to test, if a token variable 
is equal to the word END. To specify the word END, I write it as 
a lit-word, because lit-words are changed to words on the run. I 
need to use == to compare, because I want the type to be the same 
too. So I would expect, this is the correct test:

	token == 'end

Let's test:

>> token: first [end]
== end
>> token == 'end
== true

Seems to work, but then the surprise, if token is a lit-word:

>> token: first ['end]
== 'end
>> token == 'end      
== true

Also true? Hmm, so I have to write:

>> :token == 'end
== false

The above is done in R2.

Strangely enough, with http://issue.cc/r3/1882you are proposing 
to do the opposite of http://issue.cc/r3/1881

In #1881 you are proposing to take what in R3 is currently an active 
value and render it inactive, which will make it mildly safer to 
handle - lit-word/lit-path conversion to word/path is a trivial thing. 
In #1882 you are proposing to make the word! type into an active 
value, where you would have to treat every word value as carefully 
as you treat the function it is assigned. Except it's worse, because 
in R2 it has the effect of doing *blocks* as well, if those blocks 
are assigned to a word - even DO of an inline word isn't that unsafe. 
It is really bad.

Please, be consistent here. If you accept #1881, please reject #1882, 
for our own safety.

Oh wait, I misread #1881, I thought it was the lit-path thing. Never 
mind, it's unsafe too.

I noticed when you did the poll, you used a safe function that you 
knew the source of. Do the poll again with a function that deletes 
your hard drive, or even a block of code for some other dialect that 
will coincidentally do damage when interpreted by the DO dialect 
(since R2 does this with blocks and parens as well). Or even a function 
that takes an unknown number of parameters, and put the call in the 
middle of code that might be affected by evaluation order or get-word 
hacking.

Most of you might not remember this, but parens used to be treated 
as active values in R2. If you had a paren assigned to a word, putting 
that word inline in a DO dialect block would cause the paren to be 
executed. I used to use this as a way of having quick thunks (functions 
that take no parameters) without calling DO explicitly. However, 
this made it difficult to work with paren values, and was eventually 
removed for security reasons because it made screening for potentially 
dangerous values more difficult than a simple ANY-FUNCTION? call. 
It would be bad to make word! and path! values just as difficult 
to work with.

In #1881 you are proposing to take what in R3 is currently an active 
value and render it inactive
 - do I?