[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I had expected that the argument type check would barf on my little > > pathological case, but it didn't!!!!! > > It doesn't for the simple reason that: > > >> type? :b > == paren! > >> probe :b > (a: negate a) > == (a: negate a) > >> type? b > == integer! > >> probe b > -1 > == -1 > > So you're actually passing an integer, not a paren, to IFS. > Yes. It finally sunk in... ;-) > > > so you can imagine my surprise to obtain these results! > [...] > > You're still passing an integer, here. (You get "zero" because you > have written IFS as: > > ifs: func [[throw] cexp pblk zblk nblk /local cval] [ ... > > notice PBLK ZBLK NBLK instead of PBLK NBLK ZBLK.) > > > Well, it appears that do does NOT distribute over evaluation of its > > argument!!!!! > > It does, don't worry. :-) > I'm delighted to stand corrected. To quote someone from an earlier post, "Silly me!" > > Anyway, let me partecipate with my own version: > > >> sign: func [num [number!]] [either zero? num [0] [divide num abs num]] > >> sign 2 > == 1 > >> sign -2 > == -1 > >> sign 0 > == 0 > Nice! Let me further suggest signum: func [val [number! char! money! time!]] [ either zero? val [0] [either negative? val [-1] [1]]] The change of name is suggested to reduce reading-aloud confusion betweeen "sign" and "sine" -- from an old math textbook. The replacement of your elegant division with more explicit logic is to allow the domain to include all argument types accepted by Positive? , Negative? , and Zero? . > > >> ifs: func [ > [ [throw] > [ num [number!] > [ if-pos [block!] > [ if-zero [block!] > [ if-neg [block!] > [ ] [ > [ do get pick [if-neg if-zero if-pos] add 2 sign num > [ ] > An elegant solution to the multiple-evaluation problem! My compliments! > > >> ifs -2 ["positive"] ["zero"] ["negative"] > == "negative" > >> ifs 0 ["positive"] ["zero"] ["negative"] > == "zero" > >> ifs 2 ["positive"] ["zero"] ["negative"] > == "positive" > > Seems to work as expected. With B also: > > >> ifs b ["positive"] ["zero"] ["negative"] > == "positive" > >> ifs b ["positive"] ["zero"] ["negative"] > == "negative" > >> ifs b ["positive"] ["zero"] ["negative"] > == "positive" > > Notice that: > > >> ifs :b ["positive"] ["zero"] ["negative"] > ** Script Error: ifs expected num argument of type: number. > ** Where: ifs :b ["positive"] ["zero"] ["negative"] > Inspired by your Ifs above, let me offer to remove the type constraint... ifs: func [ [throw] num if-pos [block!] if-zero [block!] if-neg [block!] ][ do get pick [if-neg if-zero if-pos] add 2 signum num] ...provide another pathological B ... >> a: 1 == 1 >> b: to-paren [a: a + 2 // 3 - 1] == (a: a + 2 // 3 - 1) >> b == -1 >> b == 0 >> b == 1 >> b == -1 >> b == 0 >> b == 1 Which seems to work both with B and :B ... >> ifs b ["pos"] ["zero"] ["neg"] == "neg" >> ifs b ["pos"] ["zero"] ["neg"] == "zero" >> ifs b ["pos"] ["zero"] ["neg"] == "pos" >> ifs :b ["pos"] ["zero"] ["neg"] == "neg" >> ifs :b ["pos"] ["zero"] ["neg"] == "zero" >> ifs :b ["pos"] ["zero"] ["neg"] == "pos" -jn-

- [REBOL] Ifs Re:(6) lmecir
- [REBOL] RIP ifs-for-whomever joel . neely
- [REBOL] Rebol von Neumann properties (RIP ifs-fo... lmecir
- [REBOL] Rebol von Neumann properties (RIP ifs-fo... joel . neely
- [REBOL] Rebol von Neumann properties (RIP ifs-fo... lmecir
- [REBOL] Ifs Re:(6) g . santilli

- [REBOL] Ifs Re: g . santilli
- [REBOL] Ifs Re:(2) joel . neely

- [REBOL] Rebol/Core User's Guide Re:(5) joel . neely

- [REBOL] Rebol/Core User's Guide Re:(4) g . santilli
- joel . neely