World: r3wp
[Red] Red language group
older newer | first last |
BrianH 27-Jan-2012 [4550] | Kaj, compatibility can't practically be measured as a whole with Boolean algebra. Try fuzzy logic math :) |
Evgeniy Philippov 27-Jan-2012 [4551] | BrianH: that's not only fuzzy logic. That's ALL kinds of logic, not only fuzzy IMNSHO. |
PeterWood 27-Jan-2012 [4552] | Oldes: I've emailed a skeleton test file for enum to you. |
Oldes 27-Jan-2012 [4553x3] | 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:) | |
Dockimbel 27-Jan-2012 [4556x2] | '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. | |
Oldes 27-Jan-2012 [4558] | do we want to allow declarations like: integer!: func[a [integer!]][ a ] |
Dockimbel 27-Jan-2012 [4559] | Ah, old question :-) There's a ticket about that opened by Rudolf...let me find it... |
PeterWood 27-Jan-2012 [4560] | 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. |
Dockimbel 28-Jan-2012 [4561] | 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). |
Oldes 28-Jan-2012 [4562] | I know it's allowed, the question is, if it's not better to disallow this, or at least throw warning |
Dockimbel 28-Jan-2012 [4563x4] | 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". | |
Oldes 28-Jan-2012 [4567] | should this: #enum test! [foo: 3] f: func[foo [c-string!]][print foo] f "bar" throw a declaration error or print "bar"? |
Dockimbel 28-Jan-2012 [4568] | Declaration error. |
Oldes 28-Jan-2012 [4569] | Any idea what else should be tested? https://github.com/Oldes/Red/blob/float-partial/red-system/tests/source/compiler/enum-test.r |
Dockimbel 28-Jan-2012 [4570x8] | 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. | |
Oldes 28-Jan-2012 [4578] | done.. you can find complete diff for the pull request here: https://github.com/dockimbel/Red/pull/201/files |
Dockimbel 28-Jan-2012 [4579x2] | 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. | |
Oldes 30-Jan-2012 [4581] | Why is not c-string! available in pointer-syntax rule? |
Dockimbel 30-Jan-2012 [4582x2] | Because, pointer [byte!] == c-string! |
And because pointers on pointers are not allowed. | |
Oldes 30-Jan-2012 [4584] | How to define in RedS struct like: typedef struct Info { InfoType type; struct Info *next; } Info; |
Dockimbel 30-Jan-2012 [4585x3] | 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 | |
Oldes 30-Jan-2012 [4588] | yes... just tested... it works |
Evgeniy Philippov 31-Jan-2012 [4589x4] | 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. | |
Dockimbel 31-Jan-2012 [4593] | Good as long as there's no error. ;-) |
GrahamC 31-Jan-2012 [4594] | Just remind me please .. when is work starting on RED itself? |
Evgeniy Philippov 31-Jan-2012 [4595x2] | Dockimbel - those warnings mean ambiguities |
I currently try to resolve them | |
GrahamC 31-Jan-2012 [4597] | Is http://www.red-lang.org/p/roadmap.html Bootstrap 4 referring to the RED language? |
Andreas 31-Jan-2012 [4598x2] | In the roadmap, Red refers to Red proper, Red/System to Red/System. Easy as pie :) |
So yes, bootstrap steps 3, 4, 5 refer to implementing parts of Red proper. | |
older newer | first last |