dupbool

[Gobo]

It would be extraordinary useful to have dupbool operator. For now, Sanger's nested if's do not work right, since only the deepest's if condition is checked. The right thing would be dupbool the top value and and it with a new condition.

[EricL]

dupbool would do what exactly?  Push another value onto the stack that is the same as the top value?

[Gobo]

dupbool would do what exactly?  Push another value onto the stack that is the same as the top value?

Yes. And I havn't found a workaround to do it.

[EricL]

Me neither.  I'll add it in 2.43v.

[Numsgil]

While you're adding operators, a swap had been requested once upon a time.  And then go ahead and add a boolswap, too.

[EricL]

While you're adding operators, a swap had been requested once upon a time.  And then go ahead and add a boolswap, too.

Swap swaps the top two entires in the stack, yes?

[Numsgil]

right.

[EricL]

dupbool
swapbool
dupint
swapint

added for 2.43v.  Names chosen by convention with other stack operators.

[Gobo]

Thanks. BTW,

dupint

was known as dup. Is it considered alias now?

[EricL]

whoops.  Didn't realize it existed.  Yes, their aliases.  You can use either in bot DNA.  They have different underlying BP numbers in 2.43u, but I'll make them the same in 2.43v (so as not to skew mutation probabilities).

[Gobo]

It would be cool to have also over operators, which copy the second value on the top of the stack ( a b -- a b a ). For example:

Code: [Select]

if ( A ) {
    if ( B ) {
        C
    }
    else {
        D
    }
}
else {
    E
}could be then coded as:

Code: [Select]

A dupbool B overbool overbool and C dropbool not and D dropbool not E dropbool

[MacadamiaNuts]

Wacky. Why not a general operator that returns the value at a specified backwards position in the stack?

like:
{a b c d e f}

3 return = value d
5 return = value b

But then, evolved DNA may lose the little sequencial readability it had.

I suspect a forward-only GoTo could be more straightforward for flow forking. And it would be a lovely retro addition, too.  

I betcha, someday we will be able to code Emacs in DB DNA.

[Gobo]

I suspect a forward-only GoTo could be more straightforward for flow forking. And it would be a lovely retro addition, too.  

Foo! If you head on DNA readability, goto is perhaps the thing you want the least

[Numsgil]

An over operator is starting to push the boundary a bit.  Can you achieve the same effect using swap and dup somehow?  If it's really impossible to do using other operators, we might need to implement it, but I'm really leaning towards no on this.  Evolved DNA can get really wacky, so it's best to keep the language as straightforward as possible.

The good news is that for DB3, I'm implementing codules, which would (should) easily allow forking.

[Gobo]

An over operator is starting to push the boundary a bit.  Can you achieve the same effect using swap and dup somehow?

I believe no.