World: r3wp

30 arguments: that's 30 * 4 * 2 bytes = 240 bytes, so that should 
fit in.

Don't the count and the pointer count?

ah yes, you're right, there's more to add...let me see...

hmm, I haven't looked correctly at the code, the stack limit is for 
local variables storage (255 bytes) not for function arguments.

Too many context switching today, I can't even properly read my own 
code comments. :-/

I once went on vacation for two weeks, and then stared at my code 
for a full day, fearing that I couldn't program anymore :-)

Unfortunately, my brain cells are too damaged by code to experiment 
such feeling. ;-)

About RTTI: I don't know if there are good or evil, hard to say. 
Typed data could be generalized, opening a lot of new possibilities. 
I just haven't had the time to experiment it to see if it would bring 
more advantages than issues. Your (and others) feedback on that would 
be very useful to me.

Also for fixed arity functions, the function spec block might become 
quite verbose:


foo: func [[typed] arg1 [...] type1 [integer!] arg2 [...] type2 [integer!]...] 
[ ... ]


Maybe the type numbers could be packed in a byte array and passed 
as an array pointer to make it easier to declare and use...?

Something like: 


    foo: func [ [typed] arg1 [...] arg2 [...] type [pointer! [byte!]] 
    ][
        ;-- type/1 => type of arg1
        ;-- type/2 => type of arg2
        ...
    ]

I'm very pleased with the new typed functions, as they should enable 
small low-level dialects. What I've learned from REBOL is that typed 
data with a standardised type system is sufficient to implement simple 
dialects, and that these are very useful to keep interfaces compatible 
while evolving them, because it's much more flexible than a fixed 
number of arguments with fixed types

Don't you miss the word! datatype to implement dialects in Red/System?

I probably will, but you can always define a list of constants yourself

I don't mean fullblown dynamic dialects, but a lightweight version 
for efficient low-level interfaces

I've implemented SDL events, including mouse input and key presses

Here's an SDL paint program:

#include %../SDL.reds


log-error: does [  ; Log current SDL error.
	print [sdl-form-error newline]
]


red:	as-byte FFh
green:	as-byte FFh
blue:	as-byte FFh

screen:		as sdl-surface! 0

event:			declare sdl-event!
mouse-event:	declare sdl-mouse-motion-event!

either sdl-begin sdl-init-all [
	screen: sdl-set-video-mode 640 480 32  sdl-software-surface

	either as-logic screen [
	while [all [
		sdl-await-event event
		event/type <> as-byte sdl-quit
	]][
		if event/type = as-byte sdl-mouse-moved [
			mouse-event: as sdl-mouse-motion-event! event

			if as-logic (as-integer mouse-event/pressed?) and FFh [

    unless plot screen  mouse-event/x-y and FFFFh  mouse-event/x-y >>> 
    16  red green blue [
					log-error
				]
			]
		]
	]
	][
		log-error
	]

	sdl-end
][
	log-error
]

I hereby name it PeterPaint, after the friend whose birthday we're 
going to celebrate tomorrow :-)

should upload it to the red program repository

+1

PeterPaint aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaah ... PetPaint would have been 
out of limit ?

hexadecimals used fort  event trigger comparaison could be holded 
in a meaning word ?

Impresive Kaj can you do us a set of widgets in SDL or just the smallest 
possible VID and the widgets will be designed later

I really like the  Idea of VID a single face that as all possibilities 
and you just activated /deactivate the parts you want or not this 
is for me the core meaning of VID.

Looks very nice Kaj! Is your SDL binding available to download somewhere 
yet?

Re RTTI: One drawback is that you loose arguments type-checking, 
so some errors won't be caught at compile-time.

Yes, it makes things a step more dynamic, so you move some of the 
checking to runtime. But that's actually the point: you can then 
develop interfaces that can be loosely compatible with a time range 
of interface versions. It's the philosophy of static everything versus 
declarative everything in REBOL and XML. In the beginning of computing, 
static seemed more correct, but these days it has turned out that 
everything has to be able to withstand change as well as possible

If you look at the Win32 API, for example, it's a huge mess of sets 
of deprecated interfaces that were replaced by new sets with slightly 
extended interfaces. So it's not only an issue in unreliable Internet 
programming, but also in low-level system programming

The SDL binding is not published yet. It's an experimental mess currently. 
I have been banging my head on getting sound to work

Not that any of you would have issues with creating such a thing 
but here is an R2 version of the Colineau's (Jocko) Google translate 
app he created in Red. (Note, I didn't add all of the routines but 
if you take a look at Colineau's code it's all there.)  Also, the 
female voice (use gTTS function instead of TTS function) is much 
better than the male in my opinion unless you want to hear "This 
is Amiga Speaking." and feel nostalgic.

rebol [
	title: {googletts.r}
	date: 20-aug-2011
	usage: {gtts "Hello World." or tts "Hello World."}	
]

lib: load/library %tts-jc.dll

TTS: make routine! [
	lpStr [string!]
	return: [integer!]		
] lib "TTS"

gTTS: make routine! [
	lpStr [string!]
	return: [integer!]		
] lib "gTTS"

-----

I created some nice memory tools for my son who is in law school 
with this by setting up the string and tweaking it and then recording 
it (I use Sound Forge). If I get some free time I'd like to create 
a dialect so that I can make an interactive tool with visual reinforcements. 
As I mentioned, you have to tweak the words and punctuation and that 
creates a problem with just reading the text normally, hence I'll 
require a mechanism to sort all that out.

Oh, the dll is in the http://www.colineau.fr/rebol/downloads/demoTTS_Red.zip
file

Sorry I meant to post this in Core. :-(

For the demos at the upcoming conferences, I've started working on 
a GTK+ binding

I can open a GTK window now

Nice!

Have you finished with your SDL demos?

No, I'm doing several things in parallel now

The SDL callback for playing sound crashes. It's in an extra thread, 
so it's hard to debug

just a detail on my dll :

tts uses the SAPI4 or SAPI5 voice synthesis normally installed on 
the PC (you can install other voices), while gTTS uses the Google 
TTS api. 

For the details on the SAPI5 interface, see http://www.colineau.fr/rebol/R3_extensions.html#section-2

Thanks Jocko, that makes more sense since the female voice is so 
much better.

Kaj - as you are so fast in creating bindings, you can port View 
engine as well, so that we coul use VID with RED later :-)

I already told you: we can't use it. Besides, Red won't be compatible 
with REBOL, so it won't be able to run VID. The same goes for the 
View engine: it's very REBOL specific

it does not prevent anything conceptually similar to be made, however.

Kaj - I expect RED being kind-of compatible with REBOL, or I am not 
interested in it. I expect we will have parser, and REBOL-like constructs. 
We don't need 100% compatibility for porting. It is just that I thought 
that View (apart from its possible licence restrictions) is significantly 
smaller to port, when comparing to things like GTK or SDL?

Maybe one day it will come anyway, if Carl does not appear anytime 
in foreseable future. Add 2 months, and we are one year in an R3 
develompent limbo ...

I mean - maybe one day RMA ports it themselves :-)

Any technical considerations are moot with software that you're not 
allowed to port

btw - do we know the licence of View engine?

No, that's the point

The new casting implementation has broken PeterPaint

Ah, I was expecting some regressions...