World: r4wp
[#Red] Red language group
older newer | first last |
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) | |
older newer | first last |