World: r3wp
[Red] Red language group
older newer | first last |
PeterWood 20-Jun-2011 [2221] | Thanks for the pointing out the initaliasation changes and fixing the tests. |
Gregg 21-Jun-2011 [2222] | Great to see continued activity and progress on Red. |
jocko 21-Jun-2011 [2223x2] | Kaj, I tested this morning, input-line works under Windows My mistake was that I did not allocate the input buffer by in: allocate 255 but by in: "" , which is not really an allocation |
on an other hand, I cannot simply include the C-library in my script by : #include %C-library.reds instead, I must extract the used functions. (here _input-line and input-line) The error message at the compilation is not visible in the console, because a large amount of text is printed. Maybe a double declaration. Any idea ? | |
Dockimbel 21-Jun-2011 [2225x2] | Jocko, this might be caused by a duplicate definition of ALLOCATE and FREE, but Kaj removed them from the C-library in the last revision. I just downloaded last revision and tested, I can include it in my scripts without any issue. |
Gregg: thanks for your kind support. | |
Oldes 21-Jun-2011 [2227x3] | print functions from Kaj's C-library has different precedence than ordinary print/prin when you call the red's exe from REBOL using CALL/console command. |
Which means.. if I have code: print-1 "int %d" 1 print "hello" I get in REBOL console: >> call/console %builds/test.exe hello int 1== 0 | |
in CMD: int 1hello | |
Dockimbel 21-Jun-2011 [2230x5] | Confirmed here too (on Windows). PRINT-1 is printing after every other PRINT calls in a script. |
It seems that they are not using the same streams. | |
This article explains the issue in the second note: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/190351/en-us | |
So flushing the C I/O streams is the solution: print-1 "int %d" 1 flush-file null print "hello" works fine. | |
A long-term solution could be to disable buffering of C's stdout stream, using a call to setvbuf(). It requires passing a stream pointer, so I am not sure this is doable now. | |
Kaj 21-Jun-2011 [2235x7] | The issue is that PRINT and PRIN use syscalls directly, and thus don't go through the buffering that the C library does on all I/O |
In particular, the standard I/O streams stdin and stdout are line buffered. Flushing them is often more forceful than necessary: the same effect is achieved by printing a newline | |
Also, when doing an input-line on Linux, stdout is flushed automatically, so you can print a question with a prompt directly behind it | |
On Windows, every print operation seems to be flushed automatically. I haven't seen it ordered incorrectly when intermixed with the Red syscalls functions | |
The differing behaviour is indeed very confusing, but I don't think the proper solution is to disable buffering. In my opinion, when Red uses the C library, PRINT and PRIN should also go through it | |
NULL can't be used any more as the return value for a function that normally returns a pointer: | |
Compiling /users/administrator/Red/Red-ZeroMQ-binding/examples/reply-server.reds ... *** Compilation Error: wrong return type in function: receive *** expected: [message!], found: [none] *** in file: %/users/administrator/Red/Red-ZeroMQ-binding/examples/reply-server.reds *** in function: receive *** at: [] | |
Dockimbel 21-Jun-2011 [2242x2] | It is caused by NULL clashing with EITHER return type static analysis. I am giving NULL an any-pointer! pseudo-type to solve that. |
I have pushed a new commit that should fix your issue. | |
Kaj 21-Jun-2011 [2244] | Works. Thanks again! The 0MQ binding compiles again after some time |
Dockimbel 21-Jun-2011 [2245] | About using C functions for printing, is there one that don't interpret backslash-escaped characters? |
Kaj 21-Jun-2011 [2246x4] | Probably if you use print-1 "%s" STRING, because the second is not the format string |
Actually, I've already had print-1 "\n" ... print "\n" instead of newline. Aren't the escapes interpreted at compile time, only in literal strings? | |
Doesn't print-line/puts() work? | |
print-line prints backslashes as-is | |
Dockimbel 21-Jun-2011 [2250] | Right, print-line works, I thought that puts() was interpreting C escape sequences. |
Kaj 21-Jun-2011 [2251x2] | I'd been wondering about it, but you can just write literal strings in full REBOL format |
By the way, do we want to keep PRIN? My toes curl a little every time I see it. I know it's longer, but I would be OK with replacing PRIN & PRINT with PRINT & PRINT-LINE - or PRINT/LINE in Red proper | |
Dockimbel 21-Jun-2011 [2253x3] | I had a hard time with PRIN at beginning too, but got used to it after a few years of practice. |
I would probably keep PRINT for printing with an added newline. But replacing PRIN is welcome if a better alternative is found. | |
PRINT/LINE and PRINT-LINE are a bit too long, especially for using from the (future Red) console. | |
Kaj 21-Jun-2011 [2256] | You'd probably end up with PUT for PRIN |
Dockimbel 21-Jun-2011 [2257] | That's what I was thinking, but PUT is a bit generic verb. OTOH, users coming from other languages wouldn't be shocked by PUT used in this context. |
Kaj 21-Jun-2011 [2258] | Yes, it's not great, either. The problem with PRIN is compounded in Red/System because now you get prin-int and such |
Dockimbel 21-Jun-2011 [2259x3] | Well, that can be changed to put-*, not a big deal. |
Another option could be WRITE, if it is not used latter in Red/System. | |
But REBOL users might find it a bit misleading. | |
Kaj 21-Jun-2011 [2262] | I suppose READ and WRITE will get a REBOL like implementation? |
Dockimbel 21-Jun-2011 [2263x2] | Yes, but at Red level. |
At Red/System level, we might have something like READ-PORT, WRITE-PORT. | |
Kaj 21-Jun-2011 [2265x2] | With the latest series of Red versions, the 0MQ binding didn't work anymore due to crashing on a certain imported function call. This is now fixed, probably as a side effect of the last few fixes |
Shouldn't newline be a byte/char, as in REBOL? It's a string now | |
Dockimbel 21-Jun-2011 [2267] | It's for consistency when passed to PRIN/PRINT and avoid requiring PRIN-INT. |
Oldes 21-Jun-2011 [2268] | I would keep PRIN. And instead of PRIN-INT I would like to see FORM. |
Dockimbel 21-Jun-2011 [2269] | The problem with FORM is that it implies a new buffer allocation that you need to free at some point. |
Kaj 21-Jun-2011 [2270] | Yes, the C library print functions do that automatically |
older newer | first last |