World: r3wp

quickly make a little example file which demonstrates the problem 
using a new console.

hehe... its just that no probing or printing reveals anything out 
of the expected.

using a new console, things behave as expected... which is why I 
am wondering why they don't in the running code

(using a block with simple values, the two lines above act as I would 
expect)

Ok, then fork the entire code and cut away chunks until it no longer 
displays the problem.

ehh impossible... we are talking bout an entire app here... 200-300kb 
of code. probably... and the problem occurs within an event loop.

but look at the simplicity of the two lines above... can you image 
a way in  which  the select would return none and the find would 
return the object?

(not impossible - that technique works when I can think of nothing 
else).

A confusion between lit-words and words maybe ?

hum...

unfortunatetely, I can't print the block, cause the objects have 
nested objects, and that causes an out of memory err, If I try to 
mold it  :-(

write clipboard:// mold/all blk
and paste it (and mold/all VAL) into a new editor window.

Ah..

the actual app takes very little ram, but the objects, have bidirectional 
linking... so I guess the mold never reaches the end.

Ok, then, for your test, before molding, process each object to set 
none all fields which could recurse.

hum... I'll try my inspector... maybe it can help me a bit...

oops... closed altme by mistake... the inspector basically has the 
same problem...

I'm trying some block alterations...

wrt lit-word vs word... find is reacting as expected.... select is 
numb like a frog on ice

Maybe check that BLK really has the expected types in the correct 
order.

oh my... I just found it... 

 same?  :select get in system/words 'select
== false

seems some code redefines select somewhere...   >:-(

well, thanks for bearing with me... your words vs lit-words  idea... 
got me probing differently..

strangely, I can't trace where that is happeneing... willl try to 
protect the word...

well, as usually protect doesn't help... arrgh.

(as usuall)

protect doesn't help ? Is SELECT redefined despite being protected 
?

well, protect, only helps within the global context... which is why 
I wish there was /HARD mode which protected ANY setup of a specific 
word.

probably also can protect word within a context... but at that point, 
the damage is usually done.

I've discoverd another way to discover where a set occurs... within 
objects, you look at the first... and the natural order of words, 
is a telling clue...

first self

well found it... and its a biggie  :-(   deep within glayout... well... 
its actually pretty easy for fix there, though.

why the hell did I use select... its actually quite strange that 
this is the first time I've hit this snag in 3 years though !

I should just point out that only the system/words object can grow 
dynamically.

Other objects have fixed order of words.

the issue is that as it is a commonly used feature, although easy 
to fix within glayout... many references to in my apps will break... 
ahh...

The order does not change after the initial SET.

yes.

>> set 'var-1 1
== 1
>> set 'var-2 2
== 2
>> set 'var-1 3
== 3
>> print mold skip tail first system/words -4
[Comments in-obj var-1 var-2]

how the hell did I not realise I was overiding such a core word? 
 sometimes the obvious just slips by...  when you're looking the 
other way   ' :-/

yes anton, which is why I discovered where it was being set... after 
a func called 'layout (this one voluntarily being an override)

It would be nice in R3 if we could remove things from an object when 
deriving with make... (we can , sort of, using the 'THIRD accessor 
on an object and editing it....)

but when the object is being created by another controler (like in 
view) then we can't really...

So you'd really like Rebol to have the equivalent of JavaScript's 
Delete operator?

hum don't know about it... but if I could do 

obj: make/without ref-obj [] [select]

We could already shrink our objects, when its needed.

binding would then have to replace any object-local bindings of select 
to the global context and raise an error if it doesn't exist, as 
it would if you had tried to define a new object with select undefined 
in any place.

One think that I like in JavaScript is the flexibility to freely 
add and remove members from object instances and object prototypes 
.

think -> thing

it is usefull only when it is something which is not automatic like 
in python, where its nightmarish.

if you inadvertently typo , then you create a new member!  talk about 
hard to debug errors!!