World: r3wp
[Red] Red language group
older newer | first last |
Kaj 19-May-2011 [1453x2] | It seems that NULL is defined as integer! 0 |
So it seems that there is no way anymore to pass a null pointer to a function or to compare a pointer to null | |
Andreas 19-May-2011 [1455x2] | null-p: as [pointer! [integer!]] 0 |
does that work? | |
Kaj 19-May-2011 [1457x2] | I tried AS POINTER! |
The only syntax I can get to compile is as pointer! [integer!] 0 | |
Andreas 19-May-2011 [1459x2] | null-ptr: pointer [integer!] null-ptr/value: 0 should probably work as well |
but `as pointer! [integer!] 0` is fine, if it works. the spec needs a fix so that the examples match the syntax spec, though. | |
Kaj 19-May-2011 [1461] | Wouldn't that set the pointed to integer? |
Andreas 19-May-2011 [1462] | indeed, sorry for the confusion |
Kaj 19-May-2011 [1463x2] | Are imports type checked yet? |
I can't get past the null comparisons, but I've checked my other fixes in to Fossil | |
Dockimbel 20-May-2011 [1465x2] | Are imports type checked yet? Yes (but untested yet). |
Thanks for all your feedback, it is really helpful. I will review every issue you've raised today. | |
Kaj 20-May-2011 [1467] | Thanks. The 0MQ binding is a nice test case |
Dockimbel 20-May-2011 [1468x7] | I was a bit confused yesterday about ALIAS usage, due to this ticket: https://github.com/dockimbel/Red/issues/39.I jumped on fixing it too fast without first checking the specification, so I mistakenly extended ALIAS beyond its original purpose (which is just for aliasing struct! declarations, as described in section 4.5.5 of the specification). |
I just pushed a new commit that reverts back some of the changes I did for aliased types yesterday, and fixes the compiler errors reported by Kaj. | |
I have uploaded a patched version of the 0MQ binding here: http://static.red-lang.org/tmp/red-0mq-fixes.zip | |
Among the changes, 'null is now a global variable defined as a null pointer. | |
So, #define is the way to go to rename existing types and ALIAS is reserved for struct! only (it allows to circular references that couldn't be done using macros). | |
Kaj: "If Red/System truely is to be strongly typed, there needs to be more than just pointer! [integer!]. The issue I'm currently having is exactly that there is no matching declaration for what I need" Could you tell me what is your need precisely? | |
it allows to circular references => it allows circular references | |
Kaj 20-May-2011 [1475] | I need a pointer to a struct of which only 0MQ knows the structure. So any pointer will do, unless you want to make Red/System strongly typed |
shadwolf 20-May-2011 [1476x4] | dockIbel one cool thing thqt could help promoting RED would be to do a openSUZE minimal distro using their tool that gives a linux ready to use out of the box with all needed to code or enhance red |
I know it zas made for Illumination software creator and was a good enightenment for it | |
plus ISC opensuze distro was custom distro of the year which spread even more the word | |
could be a good way in a middle term to have tools + OS etc in a single CD | |
Kaj 21-May-2011 [1480] | No need, it already exists |
Dockimbel 21-May-2011 [1481x2] | You're right, I should add a mention about it on red-lang.org. |
Kaj: I pushed a few fixes and changes on ALIAS support, it now behaves strictly as described in the specification. For the 0MQ binding, you need to replace [struct! message!] occurences with [message!] to make it compilable with the new version. | |
Kaj 21-May-2011 [1483] | Including your previous changes, I figure? |
Dockimbel 21-May-2011 [1484] | Yes. |
Kaj 21-May-2011 [1485x2] | Processed your changes, and indeed it builds again |
Have a new batch of issues, but will research more first | |
Kaj 22-May-2011 [1487x7] | In the spec in 4.5.5, shouldn't the child structs gift/first and gift/second be created individually (and assigned to the struct pointers in gift) before their members can be assigned? |
At the end of the last example in 4.6.2, shouldn't | |
a/count: p/count | |
be | |
a/count: p/value | |
? | |
It would also be good to make it clear that the integer! pointed to by p needs to be separately allocated (presumably by foobar and GetPointer) | |
Dockimbel 23-May-2011 [1494x2] | 4.5.5: yes, you're right, the example is missing gift/first and gift/second proper initialization. |
4.6.2: right too, it is a typo. | |
Kaj 23-May-2011 [1496x5] | At the end of 4.6.5, |
;-- writes 123 (4 bytes) at 40000008h | |
should be | |
;-- writes 123 (4 bytes) at 40000004h | |
(I hope) | |
Dockimbel 23-May-2011 [1501] | Yes, it's 40000004h as the index is one-based. |
Kaj 23-May-2011 [1502] | By the way, what minimum CPU is your emitter targeting? |
older newer | first last |