Comments on: Some Rebcode Feedback...
I've received a few comments regarding the rebcode VM idea. Most people were positive about the idea, but I also heard from some folks who prefer this feature not be a high priority. (Currently, it is low in the priority queue.)
Some comments were regarding block usage within the code. Yes, it is likely we'd allow it, but for the quick tests, I did not want to spend time implementing it.
If blocks are allowed, then the rebcode can be made a bit more structured for operations like loop. The string fill example could be:
count: 10000 loop count [ t: head text val: 0 num: 256 loop num [ change t val t: next t val: add val 1 ] ]
Other control operations like while, if, either, case, etc. could also use blocks in a similar way, but there are some tradeoffs on how such block structure would best be implemented. It would be cool if rebcode were 100% reversable (moldable from its internal representation), but most of us would probably not want to pay a run-time price for that advantage.
So, maybe that's a topic to explore on the next vacation...
Post a Comment:
You can post a comment here. Keep it on-topic.