World: r4wp
[#Red] Red language group
older newer | first last |
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) | |
Gregg 26-Mar-2013 [6615] | Clearly. From a testing and coverage perspective, it would be great to have a matrix (and an easy way to generate it) to see how complete each type is, or make sure you have everything in place when building a new type. |
DocKimbel 26-Mar-2013 [6616x2] | That is what I was asking for a few months ago from contributors. |
Red runtime code can be easily parsed to extract those information. | |
Gregg 26-Mar-2013 [6618] | Let me finish my pass on boot doc strings, and then I may look at that. |
DocKimbel 26-Mar-2013 [6619] | Peter has already started something in Red/docs/generate-reds-api.r, but it might be just for extracting doc-strings. |
Gregg 26-Mar-2013 [6620x3] | OK. |
SAME? is a tricky one. I will make it very basic for now, and we can fix it when more accuracy and details are needed. | |
I don't know how Ladislav's identity article applies, since R2 and R3 differ as well. | |
DocKimbel 26-Mar-2013 [6623] | SAME? is not implemented yet, we need first a matrix of datatypes and consider each case one by one, then implement it. |
PeterWood 26-Mar-2013 [6624x2] | Yes - Red/docs/generate-reds-api.r just extract docstrings ... but it shouldn't be hard to generate the datatype matrix. |
The dataype comparison matrix is on my todo list but I haven't found time to start on it yet. | |
DocKimbel 26-Mar-2013 [6626] | 7000 hits so far on red-lang.org since the new blog entry. The Reddit wave has been the biggest I've seen since the site is online. We'll need to particulary target Reddit for future Red communication (the current one happened by accident, but it's still instructive). |
Gregg 26-Mar-2013 [6627x2] | Doc, do you want any TBD marks for things that aren't implemented yet? e.g. /all and /header in LOAD? |
Or should I put in stubs based on how they work in REBOL. | |
DocKimbel 26-Mar-2013 [6629] | TBD marks are more helpful for now, you can put stubs from REBOL in comments, so when implemented, I would just uncomment it. |
older newer | first last |