World: r3wp

If I substitute request-file it opens hte requester and continues 
throughthe code but request-dir gives me the error before the requestor 
opens..

Found the error in the view-request.r source code:
backeffect base-effect
Not sure what it does but commneting it out fixes the problem..

I guess its just some undefined backdrop color/effect - base-effect

I have a problem with a program, I build with enface. I include source/view.r 
and use ALERT. It works fine, if I click the ok button in the alert 
dialog with the mouse, but I get an error, if I hit <Return>:

** Script Error: find-key-face has no value
** Where: wake-event


A little research tell me, that wake-event is defined in source/view-object.r 
, but that isn't included in source/view.r , so it probably is automatic 
in, when enface is used. If I include source/view-object.r (before 
including source/view.r), I don't get the error, but then the alert 
window is placed partly outside the screen (because screen-face/size 
isn't set correctly. I can set it manually in source/view-object.r 
, but then I force a certain screen-size, and it won't work with 
other screen sizes. I'm wondering, how REBOL in the first place get 
the correct screen size, probably with some hidden system call!?

Suggestions?

Problem solved. It was because I included source/view.r within a 
context. Doh!

base-effect is an effect block. In the Rebol/View console:

	>> base-effect
	== [gradient 0x1 180.200.180 120.140.120]

Not sure yet where it is defined though.

Back in march I had an issue with this error:

** Script Error: user-prefs has no value
** Where: vbug
** Near: if not dbg: user-prefs/debug [exit]

Graham mentioned it was a bug with "request-download" or similar...

I'm now getting it with "read-net"

Graham suggested: user-prefs: [ debug: false ]

 I tried Gahams suggestion but I get another error:
** Script Error: Invalid path value: debug
** Where: vbug
** Near: if not dbg: user-prefs/debug [exit]

well, the error appears to be the same.

are you positive you have created the user-prefs object?

user-prefs: make object! [ debug: false ]

I did not make it an object! Just had user-prefs: [debug: false]

Works now!

Thanks again Graham!

My error it seems when I first mentioned this!

.

I have a application that is spread over around 15 files.. I use 
>>do %file<< to "include" them now. Now I am making a encapped version 
of app. do still tries to do the .r files but they don't exist when 
single exe is created so I get errors. I tried naming all files when 
doing encap but it behved the same. I read about prebol and understand 
that I have to  #include the files but I suppose that won't work

when developing and executing from it directly with >>rebol mainfile.r<< 
because it will need to be prereboled each time? 


Is there a way to make a script that I can encap and run directly 
via .r files? If there is no other way I was thinking about making 
>>either encap [ #include %file.r ] [ do %file.r ]<< but it's not 
the most elegant solution .. Is there any better?

I simply use two separate files, one for #include, the other for 
'do.

but then you have to make code changes on two files?

I find it to be far less cumbersome than trying to come up with fancy 
methods of using a single file for do and #include. Especially if 
you are using multi-level includes.

With that I mean, if you create your own libraries that are preprocessed 
or 'do'ed separately and then included or 'do'ed in the main file.

Be sure that you don't do much else but includes in those files. 
This will make sure that after a while, working on your project, 
both files will get steady and no more changes occur, and then you 
won't see there are two different files.

yes, I have multi level do-s a file does app-specific lib file which 
do-es more generic libs etc .. hm I will think about it..

I don't like duplicating code.. then I can have one bug in one file 
and another in other and I always have to check if I updated them 
both etc.. winMerge and tools like this would help but anyway

I know what you mean, but in this case, I find it easy to make an 
exception.

thanks for explaining it to me.. so I know what options are there.

In the build system I use now for my projects, there are two separate 
files. The one I use for development is the 'do, and the one my customer 
gets is the #included version. Then I have a make-file, that builds 
the project and puts it where it needs to be (local webserver), counts 
up the build version. I can build it whenever I want and there are 
no hiccups.


My earlier attempts at a build system was by trying to be fancy, 
i.e. build with as few keypresses as possible. It never worked as 
well as this one.

yes, many times simplest solution is the best.. and usage shows what 
works

I will try few ways of doing it too

Would this one line in your start up help?
   if not encap [#include: : do]

interesting.. I will try if it works

why not create a target source file and run that?

enface source.r -t target.r -o target.exe
and that gives you the pre-reboled version as target.r

but then I have to encap everty time I make a change :)

no .. you can use pre-rebol ....

encap uses prerebol

ok .. encap or prerebol every time I make a change .. I could automate 
it so that when I want to text-run app I have some batch file that 
prerebols it and runs it instead of just runs it

Also look at cheyenne.r

that could work since rebol doesn't give me line number on error 
so it doesn't matter that I am editing different thing than running 
(in terms of file/line num)

I use a .cmd file myself ... to build my sources and then run them.

But doc has set up cheyenne.r so that you can either run it , or 
use it in encap.

I will look at cheyenne.r , thanks

Janko: re your #include question: you should try INCLUDE, seriously

it solves exactly your problem

you always can do: INCLUDE %file, which is an equivalent of DO %file, 
except for the fact, that it includes everything needed

...and if you want to just save the file, you use INCLUDE/LINK %my-input.r 
%preprocessed-output.r

Sunanda, the "#include: :do" suggestion won't work as #include is 
an issue! not a word! ... I like the line of thought though.

#include: :do surely isn't possible, it would be possible only if 
we used the *include* alternative

Ladislav: I will try your include