World: r3wp
[Red] Red language group
| older newer | first last |
| Andreas 28-Dec-2011 [4098x2] | GCC either rewrites atexit directly or redirects atexit calls to __cxa_atexit via libcc, I don't exactly remember. |
(That should have been: "via a stub in libgcc".) | |
| Dockimbel 28-Dec-2011 [4100x2] | CASE native implemented in Red/System (same syntax as REBOL's one). |
Doc and tests will be added tomorrow. | |
| Kaj 28-Dec-2011 [4102] | Nice! |
| Henrik 29-Dec-2011 [4103] | Missing double-quote in: http://static.red-lang.org/red-system-specs.html either a > 0 [print "TRUE"][print "FALSE] |
| Dockimbel 29-Dec-2011 [4104] | Henrik: thanks, I'll fix that today with the addition of CASE description. |
| Pekr 29-Dec-2011 [4105] | as for CASE - I could not fin it in the Docs, in the section talking about eventually planned features. I could find there only SWITCH directive :-) Maybe that section could be revisioned, to let us know, what is eventually planne, and what is not .... |
| Dockimbel 29-Dec-2011 [4106x3] | I forgot to add an entry for CASE in the "Planned features" of the spec document. CASE and SWITCH were announced in slide 36 of my presentation at SFD: http://www.red-lang.org/2011/09/red-at-software-freedom-day-2011.html |
Other native functions were also announce, but their priority is lower. I should update the "Planned feature" section of the spec document. | |
I plan to also add SWITCH today or tomorrow. | |
| Pekr 29-Dec-2011 [4109] | are those required to have function refinements in red/system? |
| Dockimbel 29-Dec-2011 [4110] | No, they are not related to refinements support. They just enable to write cleaner code and more readable code. |
| Steeve 29-Dec-2011 [4111] | for SWITCH I can see the need (computing labels in array to support indirect threading ) a speed issue. But why do you need to implement CASE in red/system, it's only a sequence of if/else statements ? |
| Dockimbel 29-Dec-2011 [4112x2] | (answered just above :-)) |
CASE helps "flatten" the nested IF or EITHER constructions. | |
| Steeve 29-Dec-2011 [4114x2] | except than the if-else statement (the c one) is usually mis-used. It doesn't need to be nested to work. if .... else if .... else if .... else if .... else |
FLAAAAT :-) | |
| BrianH 29-Dec-2011 [4116x2] | In REBOL we tend to use CASE instead of EITHER because CASE is faster when there are more than 2 tests. Flat is just a side benefit. Of course, an optimizing compiler could change the resulting code from one to another when it's appropriate, just like most modern C/C++ compilers do. |
I hope you have a CASE/all option. We used the CASE/all style in the R3 module system code to great benefit, mostly in maintainability but also in speed, when compared to the nested IF and EITHER code it replaced. It enabled us to add features and simplify code at the same time. | |
| Steeve 29-Dec-2011 [4118x3] | I wasn"t against CASE implementation in Red. I was asking if it was the right place to have it in Red/system as a core function instead of as a latter compiled mezz. |
but maybe a mixed the things between Red/system and the other layers | |
To be clear about that. Doc can you confirm that the mezz constructed with Red will be also compiled ? | |
| BrianH 29-Dec-2011 [4121] | IF, UNLESS, EITHER, CASE and SWITCH all make sense to compile in a compiled language because they all translate to branches and/or index lookups in the generated code, and optimizing that would need some decent compiler support. If anything, CASE is the most general (the others can all be implemented with CASE), and would benefit the most from optimization. |
| Pekr 29-Dec-2011 [4122] | what is make-float-auto-test.r? Do we have floats supported or so? :-) |
| Kaj 29-Dec-2011 [4123] | Nice catch :-) |
| Pekr 29-Dec-2011 [4124x2] | I think we don't, so maybe just a preparation for what is about to come one day :-) IIRC Doc was investigating, what would it take to get floats supported by RED/System :-) |
re Documentation - Content is missing 13.3.7 CASE | |
| Kaj 29-Dec-2011 [4126] | See above |
| Pekr 29-Dec-2011 [4127] | Kaj - I mean - CASE is described, but it is not part of the basic points ... |
| Dockimbel 29-Dec-2011 [4128x2] | Pekr: the ... just indicates that the <condition> [<body>] pattern can be repeated. |
make-float-auto-test.r: just some preliminary tests from Peter, nothing has been implemented yet wrt float. | |
| Kaj 29-Dec-2011 [4130] | Isn't the TOC autogenerated by MakeDoc? |
| Dockimbel 29-Dec-2011 [4131x4] | It is. |
I don't see missing content in online doc?? | |
Mezz in Red: yes, they will be compiled. | |
CASE in Red/System and CASE in Red are two different functions. The Red version may or may not rely on the Red/System one. | |
| Pekr 29-Dec-2011 [4135] | my mistake. TOC does not containt full details. CASE is 13.3.7, but TOC uses two levels - 13.3, so it is OK ... |
| Dockimbel 29-Dec-2011 [4136] | Right, two levels is already quite long, not sure I should extend it more? |
| Kaj 29-Dec-2011 [4137] | I do agree that it is a bit hard to find specific things in the current manual |
| Dockimbel 29-Dec-2011 [4138x5] | CASE/all: could be added to Red/System (would be called case-all), but as I'm personally not a great user of CASE/all, I'll wait for other users to ask for it. ;-) |
Specification: I agree that find the native function is not handy, I could remove the "API Reference" level to make it easier to find from TOC. | |
find => finding | |
BTW, the "manual" is supposed to be a (more or less formal) specification of the language, but as I didn't have time to write a separate user manual, it now tends to serve for both uses. | |
New handier (I hope) chapters layout: http://static.red-lang.org/red-system-specs.html | |
| Kaj 29-Dec-2011 [4143] | Looks good |
| Henrik 29-Dec-2011 [4144x2] | What is returned, when no case passes? |
I mean, whether that is necessary to have in the specs. | |
| Dockimbel 29-Dec-2011 [4146] | In such case, result is undefined. If you need a return value, it's up to you to provide a "catch all" ending rule that never fail. |
| BrianH 29-Dec-2011 [4147] | Out of curiosity, Doc, not criticism, why did you pick the 3-clause BSD license instead of the 2-clause BSD? |
| older newer | first last |