• Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r4wp

[#Red] Red language group

DocKimbel
25-Mar-2013
[6565]
The shortcut version looks better.
Gregg
25-Mar-2013
[6566x2]
OK.
Doc string question. Example:

if:	make native! [
	[
		"If	condition is TRUE, evaluate	block; else	return NONE."
		cond	 [any-type!] "Test condition."
		then-blk [block!] "Block to	evaluate."
	]
	#get-definition	NAT_IF
]


1) For simple funcs, do we want to include doc strings for params 
that seem self-explanatory?


2) Do we want to include periods at the end of param doc strings? 
REBOL includes them for function doc strings, but not param doc strings 
(it seems).
Ladislav
25-Mar-2013
[6568]
A simple suggestion: instead of "is TRUE"  I would suggest to use 
"is true" meaning anything distinct from FALSE and NONE.
DocKimbel
25-Mar-2013
[6569x2]
1) Probably not.


2) No need to add dots everywhere, we can add them when rendering 
the doc-strings where adequate.
is true
 +1
Kaj
25-Mar-2013
[6571x5]
Right, what I meant was that LOOP, being dialected, could easily 
localize the counter word.
Indeed, and it can already be done easily:
f: function [] [repeat i: 5 [print i]]
f
f: function [] [foreach i: [1 2 3] [print i]]
f
Gregg, thanks for working on the doc strings
DocKimbel
25-Mar-2013
[6576x3]
I still prefer having FUNCTION take care of it and using simple word! 
values, else it looks odd and misleading (i: 5 looks like one expression, 
while it is two expressions in fact).
Same for i: [1 2 3].
Nice trick anyway. ;-)
Kaj
25-Mar-2013
[6579]
I know, but I still think it's a fairly good compromise
DocKimbel
25-Mar-2013
[6580]
Have you tried it in interpreter?
Kaj
25-Mar-2013
[6581x2]
Yes, haven't checked the compiler
REBOL uses a dot when it's a full sentence, which is usually the 
case for the function description, but not for parameter descriptions
Gregg
25-Mar-2013
[6583x2]
Is it correct to state that FUNCTION automatically localizes all 
refinement, get-word, and set-word values found in the function body? 
And that is all that makes it cifferent than FUNC?

If so, since I don't know, why not just set-words?
Or, rather, why all word types except word?
Kaj
25-Mar-2013
[6585]
Have you tested that? As far as I know, it only adds set-words to 
the arguments and refinements
Gregg
25-Mar-2013
[6586]
I haven't. I looked at the code.
Kaj
25-Mar-2013
[6587]
Will have to wait until Doc rises again :-)
Gregg
25-Mar-2013
[6588]
Shouldn't you be sleeping too? ;-)
Kaj
25-Mar-2013
[6589]
Erm, yes
Gregg
25-Mar-2013
[6590]
A lot of doc strings talk about "evaluating", which is a long word. 
Is it less clear, or less correct, so use "do" instead, at least 
in most cases?
Endo
26-Mar-2013
[6591]
function localizes only set-words. (refinements are local by default)
DocKimbel
26-Mar-2013
[6592]
Gregg: only set-words are localized. What you saw in _function/collect-words 
is the the conversion of spec block elements to words for the ignore 
list. The collection of words from body block happens in collect-deep.
Gregg
26-Mar-2013
[6593x2]
Thanks for clarifying Doc.
In %boot.red, SET's word arg is typed as any-word!, but it accepts 
a block of words. Should the type be [any-word! any-block!] ?
DocKimbel
26-Mar-2013
[6595]
Right, but just block!.
Gregg
26-Mar-2013
[6596]
OK.
DocKimbel
26-Mar-2013
[6597x2]
Do you think we should allow paren! too?
R3 doesn't allow it.
Gregg
26-Mar-2013
[6599x2]
I don't think we need to, but Ladislav or Brian may have thoughts 
on it.
...or Andreas, or Kaj, or the other Brian... :-)
DocKimbel
26-Mar-2013
[6601]
I don't see any good use for it either.
Gregg
26-Mar-2013
[6602x2]
STRICT-EQUAL? delegates to the datatype. Should the doc string just 
say "strictly equal" in it, or should it be more like R2? i.e., there 
may be more going on, unless you have a behavior locked down for 
it.
BTW, even though I'm not ready to write deep .reds code, it's very 
enjoyable to have a reason to go through the code now. It's very 
nice.
DocKimbel
26-Mar-2013
[6604]
STRICT-EQUAL?: I prefer the R2 doc-string, it is more helpful.
Gregg
26-Mar-2013
[6605]
If the model for == is that all datatypes should use the ALL [type 
= ...  value =] tests, we can just say...OK, you beat me. :-)
DocKimbel
26-Mar-2013
[6606x2]
:-)
As several followers have requested some docs for the internal API, 
I will see this week, if I can find a few hours to write a basic 
one, just to get you started.
Gregg
26-Mar-2013
[6608]
It may save you answering a lot of  my questions. :-)
DocKimbel
26-Mar-2013
[6609x2]
As long as you have some basic knowledge of Red/System, with the 
docs, writing new natives or datatypes, should be pretty straightforward.
Gregg: I hope so. :-)
Gregg
26-Mar-2013
[6611]
Things are clearly laid out, but slot order and the stack are important 
to understand.
DocKimbel
26-Mar-2013
[6612x3]
Also the series! memory model (block! vs string!) is a fundamental 
part to understand.
Looking at %runtime/datatypes/structure.reds is a good help.
(structures.reds)