r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[Red] Red language group

Dockimbel
7-Apr-2011
[1060]
I do not plan to support such feature directly. But the code is open, 
and I will add a plugin API to the Red compiler to allow it to be 
extended by third-party libraries. You'll be able to implement classes 
with accessors if you need them.
Pavel
8-Apr-2011
[1061]
maybe it is intended but your changes to doc in git is not reflected 
in red-lang.org docs
Dockimbel
8-Apr-2011
[1062]
It is intended, I'm updating the HTML docs only then a revision is 
completed, which is not yet the case with "draft 3". It should be 
finished in a few hours and the HTML docs updated by tonight.
Kaj
8-Apr-2011
[1063]
I suppose that means you should fork the repository, develop the 
documentation in the branch, and then merge it back :-)
Dockimbel
9-Apr-2011
[1064]
After re-reading the new specs draft, I noticed a few errors in the 
pointer! examples. Also, I think that having struct! passed as value 
by default was a bad move, it makes the "passed by reference" case 
too verbose (requires to declare a pointer! [struct! ...] and a get-word! 
syntax). I think that I'll revert default struct to be passed "by 
reference" and find a special syntax for the extremely rare cases 
when a struct needs to be passed by value. I can't remember any OS 
API nor mainstream C lib that require passing struct by value (anyone?).
Maxim
9-Apr-2011
[1065]
I agree to all.
Dockimbel
10-Apr-2011
[1066]
I've made some drastical changes on pointer! datatype, to clean up 
the mess it brought (syntax ambiguity and verbosity, semantic clashes 
with other implicit pointers like c-string! and struct!). The new 
specs draft simplifies all that. I'll push it online in a hour.
PeterWood
10-Apr-2011
[1067]
Sounds very good. Look forward to reading the new specs.
Dockimbel
10-Apr-2011
[1068]
Draft 4 published.
Geomol
10-Apr-2011
[1069]
Links are nice with announcements like that.
Andreas
10-Apr-2011
[1070]
http://sidl.fr/red/red-system-specs.html
Geomol
10-Apr-2011
[1071]
thanks
Dockimbel
10-Apr-2011
[1072]
Geomol: I thought people were already used to go to http://www.red-lang.org/p/documentation.html
Geomol
10-Apr-2011
[1073]
Some of us are new in looking at Red, so we need a bit of help.
Dockimbel
10-Apr-2011
[1074x2]
http://red-lang.orgis the hub centralizing the links for all Red-related 
stuff.
I'm getting back to code now, implementing all the items from this 
list: https://github.com/dockimbel/Red/wiki
Geomol
10-Apr-2011
[1076]
Added link to Checklists/Links
Dockimbel
10-Apr-2011
[1077]
I forgot that such feature existed in AltME (as for Calendar and 
File Sharing).
Geomol
10-Apr-2011
[1078]
Regarding hex form of integer. What if someone write:

ah: 42
foo: ah

Should foo be 42 or 10 (= ah hex)?
Maybe hex integers should require prefix zero in this case?
Dockimbel
10-Apr-2011
[1079]
It will be 10 because the preprocessor would have converted it early.
Geomol
10-Apr-2011
[1080]
So variable names starting with a-f, consisting of a-f and 0-9 and 
ending on -h isn't possible.
Dockimbel
10-Apr-2011
[1081x3]
No, and I should add it the variable syntax section in the draft.
Also, I have an item in the todo list for "Hex values syntax checking". 
I guess I'll add some rules to avoid ambiguities as much as possible. 
For example, having to use uppercases only for hex letters would 
help. Allowing only 8 or 6 or 4 characters with prefix zeros when 
required should also help.
add it the variable
 => add it to the variable
Kaj
10-Apr-2011
[1084x2]
Is Red proper going to have this hex notation, as well?
I fear it is going to lead to problems if not all words are available 
to use in a context. Suppose there is an external source of data 
with named values that map naturally to a context. The ability to 
import that data easily will be broken if certain words are interpreted 
as hex values
Nicolas
10-Apr-2011
[1086]
Is the longterm goal to make an open source rebol-like language?
Kaj
10-Apr-2011
[1087]
Definitely
Nicolas
10-Apr-2011
[1088]
:)
Kaj
10-Apr-2011
[1089]
If you want a REBOL like language earlier, use Boron
Nicolas
10-Apr-2011
[1090x2]
Who started boron and red?
dockimbel. Sorry, I've got to stop asking stupid questions.
Kaj
10-Apr-2011
[1092]
Boron is Karl Robillard, Red is Nenad Rakocevic
Dockimbel
11-Apr-2011
[1093]
Kaj: I agree with your arguments, I don't plan to use that syntax 
at Red level, I would rather rely on either issue! or binary!.
Oldes
11-Apr-2011
[1094x2]
padding with zeros and uppercase only sounds good.
(prefixing)
BrianH
11-Apr-2011
[1096x3]
Peter was asking a question about c-string! syntax. There is no need 
to have separate syntax for c-string! and string!. Red/System should 
only have c-string! literals; the string! type is likely to be *implemented* 
in Red/System, so the type name would only be needed to refer to 
values that Red/System is constructing or converting to or from. 
Red itself shouldn't have a c-string! type because it's unsafe, same 
as the pointer! type. So you can use the same syntax for both string 
types: In Red, they would be string! literals, in Red/System, c-string! 
literals.
It's a bootstrapping thing. The advantage of a compiler is that the 
source can refer to any datatypes you want it to. Even if the compiler 
is written in Red or REBOL, string literals that may be of the string! 
type in the compiler can be used to represent a different datatype 
in the resulting compiled code.
Nicolas: "Why is it more popular than boron? Did the boron guy start 
red?"

A few apparent reasons:
- Red is new (shiny!).

- Red is compiled, which is a new challenge for us. Boron is interpreted, 
like REBOL.

- Red is BSD licensed; Boron is LGPL licensed. Most of the REBOL 
community is not very (L)GPL-friendly for various reasons, such as 
license incompatibility with REBOL.

- Red being compiled and BSD means that it doesn't directly compete 
with REBOL, and is considered to be complementary. We might even 
be able to get them to work together directly without causing license 
problems. This means that more people who contribute to REBOL itself 
can contribute to Red as well, which means that there are more qualified 
contributors available early on.

- Doc made Red, and we like Doc, and he is here. Karl Robillard is 
not here, afaik (I'm sure we'd like him if given the chance).
Rebolek
11-Apr-2011
[1099]
I think that BSD vs GPL does matter really much in this context.
BrianH
11-Apr-2011
[1100]
It does to me. That is one of the reasons I can help out the Red 
project, but not Boron.
Rebolek
11-Apr-2011
[1101x2]
Yeah, it does to me too. That's why I started with OSX emitter.
Even id it's still not finished... ;)
BrianH
11-Apr-2011
[1103]
That's why (after tax season) I'm going to try my hand at a Dalvik 
emitter :)
Maxim
11-Apr-2011
[1104]
its also a very big issue for me.  GPL is the license for star trek, 
when there will be no economics.
Rebolek
11-Apr-2011
[1105]
startrek sounds nice but I think it's license for Mafia.
Maxim
11-Apr-2011
[1106x2]
a lot of the people who do GPL don't work in the real world... they 
live in academia.
one thing I've always wondered... does MIT actually use the MIT license 
in their projects?
BrianH
11-Apr-2011
[1108]
Yes.
Rebolek
11-Apr-2011
[1109]
Acade Mia...