Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
  • Oct 20 22:59
    @dockimbel banned @SmackMacDougal
  • Dec 03 2017 05:53
    @PeterWAWood banned @matrixbot
  • Sep 28 2016 12:19
    @PeterWAWood banned @TimeSeriesLord
  • Aug 13 2016 03:23
    @PeterWAWood banned @Vexercizer
Vladimir Vasilyev
@9214
@nedzadarek there are no other built-in function constructors, aside from func and function (skipping does and has here), hence there's no other functions that use the spec dialect.
Except maybe for make itself.
nedzadarek
@nedzadarek
@9214 Great info! Thank you.
It seems refinement! is not used by many things after you create things (func/function/make etc.).
With foo: func [/a /b /c] [42], foo/a/b/c is just a path!; when it's executed, Red will just create 3 variables (a, b and c).
Vladimir Vasilyev
@9214

Red will just create 3 variables

it won't create anything (especially "variables")

The value of these words inside function's context will be changed from false to true if you supply them as refinements.
nedzadarek
@nedzadarek
Yes, that what I mean... in less technical way.
Vladimir Vasilyev
@9214
So as with refinement arguments, they'll change from default none to the value that you supplied.
It's not a technical way, it's how language works. You keep confusing yourself and others with false concepts and mental models.
nedzadarek
@nedzadarek
I'm not confused. It's just in that example it really didn't matter whenever or not a, b and c existed. If that confused someone - I'm sorry.
Boleslav Březovský
@rebolek
Every word declared in function header exists in function context.
Vladimir Vasilyev
@9214
@nedzadarek what you said in "Red will just create 3 variables ..." I interpreted as "Red will populate global context with 3 new words set to some value".
nedzadarek
@nedzadarek
@9214 Well... you are right. I just assumed "local variables" by saying "variables". My bad. Sorry for confusion!
Vladimir Vasilyev
@9214
@rebolek do I sound like a pedant to you?
Anyway, once more with pedantry - words, not variables!
Boleslav Březovský
@rebolek
@9214 yes, but is that wrong?
9214 @9214 shrugs
nedzadarek
@nedzadarek
Are the word... no... the term "variables" wrong? I mean word doesn't have to refer to some value (reduce first [w]; *** Script Error: w has no value).
Vladimir Vasilyev
@9214
@nedzadarek variables are direct 1-to-1 mapping between some identifier and some value, words are indirect, they always refer to some context, not to the value.
nedzadarek
@nedzadarek
But they refer to value in some context. For example bind bl: [print a] c: context [a: 42], word a in the block bl refers to the the identifier a in the context c.
Boleslav Březovský
@rebolek
Vladimir Vasilyev
@9214
@rebolek we're doomed.
nedzadarek
@nedzadarek
:sparkles:
Nenad Rakocevic
@dockimbel
Yes, Carl used the name "variable" to make it easier to understand for newcomers. Though, I think that is misleading, as most newcomers will think words are like the "variables" they know about in other languages. That's why I'm rather in favor of telling people from the start that word <> "variable", in order to draw their attention to the specific way values are referenced by symbols in Redbol.
Vladimir Vasilyev
@9214
@nedzadarek "But they refer to value in some context" - it's a re-phrasal of what I said. Word refers to a context, and word's binding always resolves to one symbol.
Whenever someone says "variable" they automatically imply lexical or dynamic scopes that comes with them from other languages, and confusion starts.
Scopes imply some "meaning hierarchy" for variables, and that's not the case in Redbol - there's no hierarchy, there're only namespaces (contexts), completely separated one from another.
nedzadarek
@nedzadarek
@9214 it's not re-phrasal. You can store variables however you want (array, map, tree) but you still get 1 to 1 mapping.
Vladimir Vasilyev
@9214
@nedzadarek I don't understand what you're saying.
@nedzadarek it's not 1-to-1, as it can change at any point in run-time.
Not a value of the variable, but a context of the word.
You can either change a context or a value in a given context.
nedzadarek
@nedzadarek
hmmm
nedzadarek
@nedzadarek
You can change the context but does it means it's not 1-to-1? I mean foo can only mean 2 things:
a) some value
b) no value
Word can only refer to one context, hence, 1-to-1 mapping.
Vladimir Vasilyev
@9214
Tell me what you mean by "1-to-1 mapping".
Jose Luis
@planetsizecpu
HAHA, oh guys you make me remind my headstrong times (still today) :)
Vladimir Vasilyev
@9214

Word can only refer to one context

Word can refer to any context at any point in run-time.

nedzadarek
@nedzadarek
@9214 v: 1 => v refers only to 1 value, 1.

Word can refer to any context at any point in run-time.

Yes, but only 1 at time, right?

Vladimir Vasilyev
@9214
For Pete's sake...
@nedzadarek do you understand how words/context mechanic works?
nedzadarek
@nedzadarek
Yes, more or less:
b: 42
b-context: context? 'b
b-context/b
Vladimir Vasilyev
@9214
@nedzadarek do you understand how variables work, as in other mainstream languages?
nedzadarek
@nedzadarek
Yes
Vladimir Vasilyev
@9214
I tend to interpret your "Yes, more or less" as "No".
@nedzadarek do you think that words/context mechanic is different from variables mechanic, or do you think that they are the same?
nedzadarek
@nedzadarek
Similar I guess... but I cannot say with 100% certainty because I don't understand a lot languages that deep.
Vladimir Vasilyev
@9214
So you don't know/understand the difference, but you keep arguing that words are variables, as in other PLs?
nedzadarek
@nedzadarek
There are a lot of languages that uses "variable". Every language differs. Variable = value that can change over time.