World: r3wp

The other one is --assertF32~= which is the equivalent for float32! 
datatypes. I have used a tolerance of 1E-6 with this assertion.

I would like to write tests for enumerations: https://github.com/dockimbel/Red/pull/201

(still not finished - I must add detection if values does not exists 
already)

Kaj, compatibility can't practically be measured as a whole with 
Boolean algebra. Try fuzzy logic math :)

BrianH: that's not only fuzzy logic. That's ALL kinds of logic, not 
only fuzzy IMNSHO.

Oldes: I've emailed a skeleton test file for enum to you.

what does backtrack ?

Also in the test doc is mentioned script run-test.r, which is not 
in repository, how to run just one test case?

(backtrack - to move back source code input cursor (PC) so it looks 
better in the NEAR field:)

'backtrack function just re-position the source code cursor to point 
to the right symbol or beginning of an expression when an error is 
raised.

run-test.r: it was there until recently, I guess Peter removed it 
as we don't use it often. I guess Peter could bring it back.

do we want to allow declarations like:
	integer!: func[a [integer!]][ a ]

Ah, old question :-) There's a ticket about that opened by Rudolf...let 
me find it...

I removed run-test.r as it was becoming difficult to get working 
once we needed to have tests not only in the red-system/tests dir. 
(I now use a script in another language which seems to be more flexible 
in it's file path handling.)

I've emailed a copy of the run-test.r to Oldes.


I'll take another look at getting run-test.r to run a test from any 
directory. If I can I'll restore it, if not I'll chane the docs.

Oldes: can't find the ticket anymore, but in a nutshell, datatypes 
should be unaffected by such declaration, they are not part of the 
same namespace as variables, so to answer your question, it is allowed 
but not recommended (there are warnings against that in the specification 
document).

I know it's allowed, the question is, if it's not better to disallow 
this, or at least throw warning

A warning could be added easily, the issue is that it would then 
make all datatypes names reserved words that would need to be added 
there: http://static.red-lang.org/red-system-specs.html#section-18

Sorry, I meant "An error..."

A warning might be a better solution.

And would avoid to add them in the "keywords list".

should this:
	#enum test! [foo: 3]
	f: func[foo [c-string!]][print foo]
	f "bar"
throw a declaration error or print "bar"?

Declaration error.

Any idea what else should be tested? https://github.com/Oldes/Red/blob/float-partial/red-system/tests/source/compiler/enum-test.r

Looking at it...

Hmm, you should have separated the compilation tests from the language 
features tests...but no problem, Peter could split that later.

A test with enum vs define?

Oh I see there's already one for that.

Multiple enums using the same name {#enum test! [...] #enum test! 
[...]}?

Setting an enumerated symbol to a value that is not an integer?

BTW, there's a `print-wide` function defined at runtime for printing 
with a blank space between values. :-)

I think that it should be enough tests for a start.

done.. you can find complete diff for the pull request here: https://github.com/dockimbel/Red/pull/201/files

Code review of your pull request finished. Only minor things except 
maybe for the addition in `get-variable-spec` that might cause some 
issues.

Also, do not forget to `git rebase` your forked branch to get all 
the latest commits.

Why is not c-string! available in pointer-syntax rule?

Because, pointer [byte!] == c-string!

And because pointers on pointers are not allowed.

How to define in RedS struct like:

typedef struct Info
{
  InfoType
    type;
  struct Info
    *next;
} Info;

Struct aliases are there for that. See http://static.red-lang.org/red-system-specs.html#section-4.5.5

info!: alias struct! [
    type [...]
    next [info!]
]

Then you can just do for example:

s: declare info!
p: declare info!

s/next: p

yes... just tested... it works

I am currently entering a formal EBNF Coco/R .ATG grammar for Red/System 
as specified in the BNF doc at the site.

Coco/R is LL(1)/LL(k). This grammar would automagically yield a new 
lexer for Red/System.

The Coco/R is GPL. The compiler/lexer produced by Coco/R is of unspecified 
license.

Typed in. Several dozens of LL(1) warnings.

Good as long as there's no error. ;-)

Just remind me please .. when is work starting on RED itself?

Dockimbel - those warnings mean ambiguities

I currently try to resolve them