I use factor code ..., factor combinator ... , factor blog ...,
and factor slava ... where of course the ... is what I'm really
looking for.
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 12:16 AM, George Battelle fac...@irini.org wrote:
What is a helpful Google Alert search string for Factor that could
become
No worries, the work around is easy. Good luck with your travels.
Steve
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Jose A. Ortega Ruiz j...@gnu.org wrote:
Hi,
Steve Weeks nbxst...@gmail.com writes:
open-window has two parameters ( gadget title -- ) so your code isn't
quite right, but I have
open-window has two parameters ( gadget title -- ) so your code isn't
quite right, but I have the same problem with fuel when ever there is
any bug in my code.
Try just typing just + (no quotes) to the fuel listener. You will
get the same problem.
I've been busy and haven't been able to look at
I just built the clean windows version this morning with the pango libs.
Does this change the build process?
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Slava Pestov sl...@factorcode.org wrote:
Hi Kyle,
The latest Factor in GIT now uses Microsoft's Uniscribe library to
render text on Windows. This
AM, Steve Weeks nbxst...@gmail.com wrote:
I tried specifying the stack effect in the method body and still get
problems.
Whether or not a word has an inferred effect is a stronger property
than an effect being declared. You are right that one does not have to
declare effects on methods
eventually and get rid of the
distinction. For now, make sure that code in method bodies on existing
generic words has a stack effect (you can use 'infer' to check).
Slava
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Steve Weeks nbxst...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure what I'm doing wrong, but the following code
suggest, you could just use at*
with if, when, and unless -- no need for new combinators.
So, yes, at* has the wrong stack effect right now, and I hope to
change it eventually.
Doug
On Jan 31, 2009, at 10:50 AM, Steve Weeks wrote:
Wouldn't it be better if at* was:
: at* ( key assoc -- key
Nice. I really didn't like that it called at* twice.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Philipp Brüschweiler ble...@gmail.com wrote:
Am Tue, 3 Feb 2009 08:36:25 -0500
schrieb Steve Weeks nbxst...@gmail.com:
Until the stack effect of at* changes, I've been using:
: at? ( key assoc -- value/key
Not sure what I'm doing wrong, but the following code makes factor go
a little nuts.
IN: sample
USING: accessors models ;
TUPLE: loc-model model ;
: loc-model ( loc -- model ) loc-model new-model ;
M: loc-model (loc) set-model ;
M: loc-model loc value ;
I get 1900 semantic warnings and
Wouldn't it be better if at* was:
: at* ( key assoc -- key/value ? ) ... ;
If the key exists then the stack is value t otherwise the stack is
key f. That way you could code something like:
key at* [ do something with the key ] unless ... ;
Right now it returns f f, the redundant f's aren't
Not all that important, but it can drive you nuts trying to figure out
what is wrong. The real bug is marked in the code below. However,
with this bug factor throws a strange error and if you try to close
the UI window, crashes.
IN: radar
USING: accessors colors kernel opengl ui ui.gadgets
Don't you find it ironic that : (shift ;) is a pain to type, but all
the finger twisting, goofy double and triple key sequences in emacs
don't seem to bother anyone? ;-)
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Eduardo Cavazos
wayo.cava...@gmail.com wrote:
Jose A. Ortega Ruiz wrote:
An easy way to
I get the following warning:
In word: with-ui
Literal value expected
for the following code:
: xx ( -- ) [ gadget XX open-window ] with-ui ;
The code runs fine, but I'm a bit anal about warnings and want to
track this down but I'm stumped about how to find it. I get this for
other code too,
I'm learning factor and have some of those noob questions. I can
program in quite a few languages, the usual things plus Smalltalk,
Ruby and a little Forth, so my questions aren't really about the
language (which looks pretty interesting). It is the simple things
like using the REPL
14 matches
Mail list logo
