Hello.
I found strange behavior of the randomize word in random vocab.
The code is pasted here.
> ( scratchpad ) build .
> 633
> ( scratchpad ) 30 [ { 0 1 } randomize first ] replicate .
> { 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 }
Thanks.
-
Thanks for the bug report. This is fixed now -- the randomize word
could not exchange an element with itself, so two element sequences
would always just reverse.
There's a unit test to make sure this doesn't happen again.
Doug
On Feb 14, 2009, at 2:29 AM, study.ana...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
OK, I'm hooked. I was trying to avoid learning another new language--
especially since I was in the middle of trying to systematize my
haphazard knowledge of C. But I find Factor ... strangely compelling.
Anyway, thought I should briefly introduce myself. I've been around open
source development s
Hi, all--
Okay, so I am trying to understand how macros work in Factor. I wrote my
first macro last night, which looks like this:
MACRO: print-with-suffix ( str -- ) append print ;
Then I can define a word in terms of the macro:
: print-with-yeah ( str -- ) " yeah!" print-with-suffix ;
Hi Matt,
You don't need a macro to do what you're doing:
: print-with-suffix ( str -- ) append print ;
is correct as is. Macros are for expanding code at compile-time. In
the UI, do "macros" about and read the docs. Some good examples of
macros are in basis/generalizations and basis/combin
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Matt Gushee wrote:
> OK, I'm hooked. I was trying to avoid learning another new language--
> especially since I was in the middle of trying to systematize my
> haphazard knowledge of C. But I find Factor ... strangely compelling.
Thanks for the feedback!
> Anywa
Matt,
Doug wrote a very detailed e-mail that explains everything; I'd just
like to add a couple of minor points.
If it wasn't for the compiler, then the following would be equivalent:
MACRO: foo ( x -- ) bar ;
: foo ( x -- ) bar call ;
What the compiler does, then, is if it encounters a call to
