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

World: r4wp

[#Red] Red language group

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