World: r3wp
[Red] Red language group
older newer | first last |
Kaj 21-Jun-2011 [2238x4] | 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 [2270x3] | Yes, the C library print functions do that automatically |
For what it's worth, I just implemented a print-newline because that's easier and more efficient than PRIN NEWLINE | |
The 0MQ binding now works on Linux for the first time. I'm quite happy with that :-) | |
Dockimbel 21-Jun-2011 [2273] | Cool! :-) |
Kaj 21-Jun-2011 [2274x2] | I've converted the library functions to pass opaque binary messages (byte-ptr!) now, as do the R3 and R2 bindings |
The examples are now responsible for converting from and to strings (so the Red examples are not compatible with the current R3 and R2 examples) | |
Dockimbel 21-Jun-2011 [2276x2] | I am installing FreeBSD8.2 on Vmware to test Red...Wow, it is like trying to install Linux in 1996...I am really surprized, I wasn't expecting an Ubuntu-like installer, but at least a decent package manager...Here's my attempt at installing git: # pkg_add -r git Fetching ... ... # git git: Command not found. Great! |
Btw, network configuration is not done by default, you need to activate it manually....seriously, in 2011? | |
Kaj 21-Jun-2011 [2278x3] | FreeBSD's main principle is to never update the installer ;-) |
You'd probably be much better off with PC-BSD or Desktop-BSD | |
http://www.pcbsd.org | |
Dockimbel 21-Jun-2011 [2281x3] | Thanks, didn't know about those BSD variants. |
I managed to get git running. Let see if I can get Red sources. | |
Hmm, I guess there is no chance to make REBOL/View run on FreeBSD without X... | |
Kaj 21-Jun-2011 [2284] | Nope. I guess you have a console system now? |
Dockimbel 21-Jun-2011 [2285] | Yes. |
Kaj 21-Jun-2011 [2286] | Installing X and everything on top manually is a cherished exercise on the way to enlightenment :-) |
Dockimbel 21-Jun-2011 [2287] | I did such installation several times, manually configuring everything, last time was in 1997. An OS requiring me to do that in 2011 is a joke. |
older newer | first last |