World: r4wp
[#Red] Red language group
older newer | first last |
Kaj 26-Apr-2013 [7333] | Neither can you compile Latin-1 nor read Latin-1 files nor other source data |
Andreas 26-Apr-2013 [7334] | I didn't see the latter claimed anywhere. |
Kaj 26-Apr-2013 [7335] | See above |
Andreas 26-Apr-2013 [7336] | Labelling the internal storage format "Latin 1" may be slightly misleading, though. |
Kaj 26-Apr-2013 [7337] | -=== Red Console alpha version ===- (only Latin-1 input supported) red>> s: "Espaņol" == "Espa" red>> length? s == 4 |
Andreas 26-Apr-2013 [7338x2] | Console and compilation are two separate things. |
I didn't see a claim anywhere, that you can compile Latin 1 sources. | |
Kaj 26-Apr-2013 [7340] | Yes, and neither works, so there is no Latin-1 support at all, except in a corner case internally |
Andreas 26-Apr-2013 [7341] | The "internal corner case" is no Latin1 support either. It's purely Unicode support, with a more efficient internal storage. |
Pekr 26-Apr-2013 [7342] | If Kaj is top Red user, maybe the priorities could be adjusted then? Depends on Doc, though ... |
Kaj 26-Apr-2013 [7343] | Yes, and as you say, it's mislabeled Latin1, so there were several thing leading me to believe that Red already had Unicode and Latin-1 support |
Andreas 26-Apr-2013 [7344] | I don't say that it is mislabeled, I say that it might be misleading. |
Kaj 26-Apr-2013 [7345x2] | Indeed, it it misleads me, I don't see why not everyone would fall over Red if we present it to the public |
But if you all would prefer me not inform you of my findings, perhaps I should go back to working in silence? | |
Andreas 26-Apr-2013 [7347x2] | Didn't say anything to that effect, and it's not what I'm thinking either. |
So the claim that the console supports Latin1 seems to be incorrect. | |
Kaj 26-Apr-2013 [7349] | Yes, that's why I reported relabeling my console versions |
Gregg 26-Apr-2013 [7350] | Let's give Doc a couple days to recover from pic-emitter, and I'm sure he'll clarify things. |
Andreas 26-Apr-2013 [7351] | Other than that incorrect claim, there's no Latin1 support in Red whatsoever. |
Kaj 26-Apr-2013 [7352] | Exactly |
Gregg 26-Apr-2013 [7353x2] | These issues are all important to know about, but it's easy to misread intent in text. |
I think we're all on the same page, if not the same code page. | |
Kaj 26-Apr-2013 [7355] | So for most purposes, Red is currently ASCII only |
Andreas 26-Apr-2013 [7356] | Well, Unicode is still working as advertised. |
Kaj 26-Apr-2013 [7357x3] | No, I've reported those issues the weeks before, and I'm working on fixing some of them, after Peter's work |
http://red.esperconsultancy.nl/Red-common/dir?ci=tip | |
http://red.esperconsultancy.nl/Red-common/timeline | |
Andreas 26-Apr-2013 [7360] | Which issues? |
Kaj 26-Apr-2013 [7361] | Discussed elaborately above |
Andreas 26-Apr-2013 [7362] | Which were disagreements at what is advertised as working. |
Kaj 26-Apr-2013 [7363] | Eh, then why did Peter implement a lot of code for it? |
Andreas 26-Apr-2013 [7364] | Because that's code which is still missing, as Doc stated multiple times. |
Kaj 26-Apr-2013 [7365] | Yes, and it was "advertised" as you say as already implemented. But why are we discussing this over? We are working on fixing it |
Andreas 26-Apr-2013 [7366] | I didn't see any advertisement beyond the basic Red string! supporting Unicode. Doc stated multiple times that the external en/decoders are not yet in place for this to be of much use. |
Kaj 26-Apr-2013 [7367x2] | It was announced last year that Unicode support was implemented in a week. What I found first is that Unicode support is useless, and now I've found that only ASCII is really supported |
But I'm tired of trying to convince people of it. I'll just go back to finishing what I need | |
Andreas 26-Apr-2013 [7369] | If Unicode support wouldn't be implemented, Peter would have a very hard time writing those transcoders. |
Kaj 26-Apr-2013 [7370] | If you're happy with your definition of "support", I'll go back to implementing the support I need |
Andreas 26-Apr-2013 [7371] | Just a matter of discerning internal implementation details and user-visible external features. |
Gregg 26-Apr-2013 [7372] | Could we say that internal unicode support exists, but is not available for I/O? |
DocKimbel 26-Apr-2013 [7373] | Kaj: you're basically saying that all the Unicode tests we wrote in the tests suite are lying...which is obviously wrong. |
Andreas 26-Apr-2013 [7374] | Precisely, yes. |
Kaj 26-Apr-2013 [7375x2] | Yes, internal features are of no use to me. I want to write actual programs |
Again, I'm tired of explaining this. Red can input some Unicode and print some Unicode. That's enough to support the test suite, but mostly useless in real life programs | |
Andreas 26-Apr-2013 [7377] | More importantly, Red can internally _represent_ Unicode. |
DocKimbel 26-Apr-2013 [7378] | Writing actual programs: I would like too, but until I/O is not fully implemented in Red, we are limited into what can be done. That's why Red is in alpha state. |
Kaj 26-Apr-2013 [7379] | I'm not contesting that. I just want features to be represented truthfully, lest we get slaughtered on the public Internet |
DocKimbel 26-Apr-2013 [7380] | Agreed, if we have some misleading naming or feature not implemented as advertised, please report them with all the required details for me to process it, either here or on the bugtracker. But simply bashing Red won't help. |
Kaj 26-Apr-2013 [7381x2] | Please, I'm not bashing Red, I'm trying to represent it truthfully. I'm trying to protect it from getting bashed. Why would I bash a project I spent the last two years of my life on? |
It's exactly that I sometimes get the feeling that you're not taking my observations seriously that I am afraid for this misrepresentation | |
older newer | first last |