AltME: Rebol School

Messages

DocKimbel
Endo: the [ | skip ] part of your rule looks superfluous.

PeterWood
How does the /only refinement of find work?
Rebolek
>> find [a b c d] [a]                
== [a b c d]
>> find/only [a b c d] [a]
== none
>> find/only [[a] b c d] [a]
== [[a] b c d]
Pekr
for nested blocks?
C: [ 1 [ 2 3 4] 5 6 ]
find/only C [2 3 4]     ;--- should be find/deep then imo :-)
PeterWood
Thanks Rebolek and Pekr

Endo
I wrote some optimization questions in munge! group but not directly related to MUNGE, so I'll be appriciated if anyone can take a look and give sme ideas.
Ashley
INSERTing into a [large] block! is significantly slower than APPENDing. Likewise, REMOVEing from the head is much slower than the tail. For this reason it is often faster to create a new block than modifying [entensively] an existing one.

Endo
Doesn't it strange that THROW throws an exception, not CATCHed but execution stops where THROW is if block executed by CONTEXT
>> b: [print "1" throw "catch!" print "2"] print catch [do b "3"]
1
catch!
>> b: [print "1" throw "catch!" print "2"] print catch [context b "3"]   ; unexpected result when using CONTEXT
1
3
I think it is a bug on R2, R3's result is
1
catch!
for both.

amacleod
What's the best way to search a block of blocks for specific values. Is there a more efficient way other then looping through each block?
would key-value scheme make it easier?
Bo
amacleod: We just were discussing that in the !REBOL3 group.
amacleod
k, thanks

Sunanda
Gregg suggests this is a good group to post puzzles.....Actually, it is a real situation for which I wrote some grossly inelegant code. My code works, but it hardly shows off the beauty of Rebol or the power of Parse. So looking to see if anyone can do better than my 15 or so lines of procedural code....
I have a block that consists of string!s and blocks!s -- think of it as a set of parameters: a keyword string is usually followed by a [set of options], eg:
   parameters: ["keyword1" [char 20] "keyword2" [num max 999] "keyword3" [] "keyword1" [not null] ]
There can be blocks without keywords and keywords without blocks -- and keywords can be duplicated as above with "keyword1".
What I need is a normalization routine to insert empty strings or blocks such that every string is followed by a block and every block is preceded by a string Example:
    In:  [   [upper]   "key 1"      "key-2" [no]      [off]   "key 1"    ]
    Out: ["" [upper]   "key 1" []   "key-2" [no]   "" [off]   "key 1" [] ]
You can assume that there are only strings and blocks in the input -- or for bonus points, come up with something cleverer than my code (an initial REMOVE-EACH loop to quietly throw away non-conforming datatypes).
Thanks!
sqlab
How about
>> out: collect [
[    parse In [ some [
[            [copy str string! copy bl block!  (keep  str keep bl)]
[            | [copy str string! (keep  str keep copy []) ]
[            | [copy bl block! (keep  copy "" keep bl) ]
[            | skip
[            ] ]
[    ]
== ["" [upper] "key 1" "key-2" [no] "" [off] "key 1"]
>  ?
Sorry that was wrong (:
sqlab
keep/only does the trick
out: collect [
    parse In [ some [
        [copy str string! copy bl block!  (keep  str keep  bl)]
        | [copy str string! (keep  str keep/only  []) ]
        | [copy bl block! (keep   "" keep bl) ]
        |  skip
    ]   ]
]
== ["" [upper] "key 1" [] "key-2" [no] "" [off] "key 1" []]
Sunanda
That looks good, sqlab -- thanks!
One minor change:   keep/only  []   ===> keep/only  COPY []
Then each inserted empty block is a different one (which wasn't explicitly stated in the puzzle description; but it helps the actual app).
Ditto (keep COPY "" keep bl)
Endo
I constantly forget about COLLECT and KEEP, and everytime I say "cool!" when I see them :)

CelesteM
This might not be the best place to ask this but since it directly involves learning it seems as good a place as any. I'm wondering what books any of you might deem essential for programming and systems architecture. Do any of you have a favorite book on system architecture?

Last message posted 184 weeks ago.