World: r3wp

The problem may be where we would want to switch context again  for 
example ifI wanted to later use count.

A correction to BrianH's STRICT-EQUAL? response: "noone has tried 
to phrase the doc string accordingly" is factually incorrect, as 
can be easily seen in the log. I posted two rephrasal suggestions.

The two suggestions from Andreas:


1) "TRUE for values that are equal and of the same case and datatype." 

2) "Returns TRUE for EQUAL? values that are of the same case and 
datatype."

I'll add the following option:


Returns TRUE for values that are equal and of the same case and datatype.
 


Which is just Andreas's #1 with "Returns" at the head, to match the 
doc string for EQUAL? and others.  That makes it 73 chars total. 
I don't think that's a problem, but I also don't think it's neccessary 
in this case. It wouldn't hurt of course, but certain information 
may have to be elided from doc strings, and this piece of information 
for STRICT-EQUAL? is easy to deduce and understand IMO.

I have two refined suggestions posted as bug#1497.

Returns TRUE if the values are equal.

And regarding the necessety, maybe it's just me, but when I compare:
- Returns TRUE if the values are equal. 
- Returns TRUE if the values are equal and of the same datatype. 

I would deduce that "and of the same datatype" is the only difference 
between those functions. I personally have been with REBOL long enough 
to know that this is not true, but I still think that these docstrings 
in this case are misleading.

Who tested map! with case-sensitive lookup capabilities.  And what 
workaround did you used ?

One workaround is to not use MAP! at all. The other workaround is 
to convert keys you want to be case sensitive to BINARY!.

Nice, here i go for binaries.

Andreas, what about something like one of these:


- "Returns TRUE if the values are strictly equal and of the same 
datatype." 

- "Returns TRUE if the values are strictly equal and the same datatype." 

- "Returns TRUE if the values are strictly equal, including their 
datatype." 

- "Returns TRUE if the values are strictly equal, including datatype." 


We can argue that just adding the word "strictly" doesn't help, but 
then the help for EQUAL? isn't very helpful either. :-) My thinking 
here is that there are a number of things that may seem confusing 
about strict equality, and we can't address them all in the doc string. 
Case sensitivity is important, and if we want to single that out, 
I'm OK with it, but might there be other cases as well?

>> strict-equal? d1 d2
== true
>> d1
== 16-Feb-2010/13:25:30-7:00
>> d2
== 16-Feb-2010/14:25:30-6:00
>> equal? [a] [A]
== true
>> strict-equal? [a] [A]
== false
>> strict-equal? 'a 'A
== true 


R3 addresses those cases, but are there others? What about user defined 
types (not sure what the status or goal is on utype! values at this 
point)?

Yes, just rephrasing the strict-equal? docstring as "Returns TRUE 
if the values are strictly equal." woul also be an option

I would then drop mentioning datatype equality, so that an interested 
user will have to consult more detailed documentation on how strict 
equality is defined

And yes, all the cases you mention no longer hold for R3.

But actually, I quite like "Returns TRUE if the values are strictly 
equal." This does not lead a user who reads only the docstring to 
wrong conclusions.

Request for help received via REBOL.org's feedback form. If you can 
help, please post here and I'll forward him the URL of the archive:

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

Using Rebol 3.0 Alpha, 2.100.97.3.1, how can I save the value removed 
from a series when I use the remove function? See example 1 below; 
I would like to be able to save the value "red" in a variable.  Can 
a "parse" statement be used instead of the remove. How would it be 
coded?

See example 2 below. Should'nt the value be "red"

example 1
text: "redblueyellow"
== "redblueyellow"
remove/part text 3
==text: "blueyellow"

Example 2
saved-text: "redblueyellow"
== "redblueyellow"
difference saved-text text
== "d"

I tried this an hour later and got 
== "rd"
===============

Save the value: use TAKE instead of REMOVE

And DIFFERENCE treats the two strings as _sets_ of characters (i.e. 
they are internally UNIQUEd) and returns only those characters which 
are not present in both strings.

Here's an example for TAKE:

Is there a useful DIFF-type function anywhere that extracts the substring 
differences between strings?

>> text: "redblueyellow"
== "redblueyellow"

>> take/part text 3
== "red"

>> text
== "blueyellow"

IIRC Gabriele and Bohdan both have provided diff-style scripts for 
R2 in the script library.

Strictly
 per current behavior of R3, just tested:

- For decimal! it means more precise comparison (17 digits versus 
15 by default, also with EQUIV?).
- For string types it means case-sensitivity.

- For word types it means case-sensitivity and binding (only binding 
for EQUIV?).
- For block types it means strictly equivalent contents.

This seems reasonable to me, but it should be documented. I'll review 
the ticket mentioned above.

Thanks Brian, much appreciated.

I updated the docbase "comparisons" page to reflect this: http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Comparisons#EQUAL.3F

Added a comment to that ticket, with a suggestion for doc strings 
that fit the limit:

- STRICT-EQUAL? "Returns TRUE if the values are equal and of the 
same datatype, case."

- STRICT-NOT-EQUAL? "Returns TRUE if the values are equal and of 
the same datatype, case."

Nice, consise, and 68 and 69 characters, respectively, no problem. 
You can even change "datatype, case" to "datatype & case".

eh?

STRICT-EQUAL? == STRICT-NOT-EQUAL?

Sorry, replace TRUE with FALSE (as I did in the comment).

That was a typo above.

why do we need both?

Because != and <> need a function to redirect to.

And you can use STRICT-NOT-EQUAL? as a function value if need be, 
but not NOT STRICT-EQUAL?.

maybe we should dispense with all infix operations

make life very messy!

People like them. And they'll like them more when you can make user-defined 
op! functions.

Returns TRUE if the values are equal and of the same datatype, case.

That ending doesn't read very well to me.

Like I said, ", " could be replaced with " & " and it would do as 
well. Would you like that? Either is considered standard English...

Would it be possible to make R3 a Windows-Host-Script language?

Yes, but it wouldn't be useful unril we have user-defined datatypes 
(to wrap the OLE objects in).

unril -> until

There might be a workaround for that with extensions, but I'd wait 
until we have the next host kit before making an ActiveScripting 
host, so we can use embedded extensions and the revamped command! 
type.

Ok. IMO we need callbacks as well. And a good documentation how this 
will be integrated into the event system.

The plan has always been to implement callbacks and integrate them 
into the event system through devices.

But you never know until it happens.

Is there a way to get the literal of a function parameter? 

Example:
 "my-funct my-data" and "my-funct: funct [parameter]..."



Can I get 'my-data within my-funct?

In R2 I could write: in object 'self, but no longer in R3. What's 
the equivalent in R3?

Those things shold be defined by Carl ASAP, as those are pretty fundamental. 
We talk about u-types for ages, but noone knows, how in fact those 
are they going to be implemented or how they will work in the end. 
Ditto for callbacks :-)

BIND? - and it works in R2 as well.

That's the equivalent to in object 'self, bind? object.

As for your first question, try a lit-word parameter like this: my-funct: 
funct ['parameter]...