World: r3wp

Doc, are you using DRAW to generate the output?

Yes, a subset of Draw dialect

ok

The PDF example in the archive is generated by using a free virtual 
PDF printer like Bullzip's one (http://www.bullzip.com).

Do you think it would be possible to translate a VID layout to your 
dialect? I have a method for that for direct postscript generation 
using Geomol's postscript dialect. This could be useful for a unified 
printing system, as I'm building a printing front end for my own 
apps.

Btw, it's not a Windows only driver, it works equally well on all 
OS using the CUPS printing system (like Linux, OS X, ...)

I see.

As I said, "my dialect" is a Draw subset, so if you can convert View 
faces to Draw dialect, you could print VID windows.

ok

Why converting VID to postscript? Is converting a View window to 
image for printing not enough? Do you have some special needs or 
requirements?

VID to postscript provides easy layout and simple previews of postscript 
layouts and I've found that converting to bitmaps is not always fast 
enough for what I need.

Will try it out, thanks Doc!
As you said, I'll also try to use pdf-maker.r ...

Vladimir, it's fairly easy to - instead of HTML - generate an XSL-FO 
directly from REBOL and use the open source FO-Processor FOP from 
the Apache group to generate PDFs. You don't have to delve into XSL-Transformations 
yet have the full power of exact control over the layout.

I need a little help to figure something out.

I have been using R3 for some time and I have a small mystery I can't 
figure out.

Some time ago, I created a script called REBOL.r3a which simply invoked 
the r3-curr.exe file (which is currently a copy of the r3-a49.exe 
that was just released).
This script was simply defined a path for the T variable:
t:	does [do %test.r]

my purpose was to simply type the letter T to invoke the test.r script 
as a quick way of running it while I had the test.r script open in 
an editor on a separate window.

So here is the mystery.

I had copied over the r3-a49.exe into the r3-curr.exe and ran it 
directly,

Then I accidentally typed T at the prompt, what I got surprised me:
>> t
** Access error: cannot open: %test.r reason:
** Where: read case load applier do t
** Near: read source case [
    binary? :content [content]
    string...

** Note: use WHY? for more about this error

Where did the r3-curr.exe get the "definition" of the T variable 
from?

I can't figure it out.

I know that Rebol will try to run REBOL.r and USER.r, but both of 
them do not have this definition.  Where else could this assignment 
be made from?

The only thing I can think of it that this is code in r3-a49.exe, 
which doesn't seem possible, so to rule that out, can someone else 
verify that the letter T is empty on their version of r3-a49.exe

Confirmed. It's just there in a49.

It's in there at least since r3-a33.exe, I have no access to previous 
versions.

You have it too.  I confirmed it has been there since r3-a32.exe 
and thought it was somehow somthing I screwed up

Thanks for confirming this.  I was loosing my mind!

eh i don't have it, maybe it's a virus

You don't have it?

>> source t
t: make function! [[][do %test.r]]

It's in A49 on both Mac OS x and Linux Libc.

i got this:
>> t: make function! [[][print "Noooo, don't look at me"]

I am speculating that the author intended this as a quick way of 
testing a script, just as I happened to write the exact same code 
in my script.

Steve , you are joking!!!

who me ?

Yes

damnit, i'm discovered

I asked on R3 chat and got this answer:


Re #3821: T won't make it to the final distribution - it's for the 
test phase.
It's not even documented. I expect that the function 
will go away inn the code
reorganization.

.

I have one question ... I have parse blocks stored in some external 
block:  parsers: [  aaa [ ( variable + 1 ) to abc ] ]  so I do select 
parsers 'aaaa to get that block .. and then I >>parse string get-parse-bock<< 
 


The problem is that "variable" in that block is defined in the function 
where parse happens ... and it's undefined inside parse block in 
this case ... any ideas how to bind it to it's outer variable... 
I haven't used bind or use before but I thought I can do something 
like this with bind .. but I can't make it work and I also don't 
"get" the bind example in docs

hm.. it seems I was using the parameters reverse and bind is exactly 
for this :)

...
I don't get this example:
    >> words: [a b c]
    >> fun: func [a b c][print bind words 'a]
    >> fun 1 2 3
    1 2 3

You give it just 'a to bind but is seems to bind b and c too??

yes, because they exist in the same context.

so it binds all the words from the context of the word you give it 
to?

I think it's more correctly to say, it binds the context in which 
the words happen to exist.

yes, that is more clear way to put it

now that I know and read the docs I get that this is written , but 
I haven't before

thanks Henrik!

no problem

Asking for help on a formatting problem


I have the following block that cotains some rebol code which I wish 
to print  on the console and then execute the code:
>> code-blk: [print "ok"]          
== [print "ok"]              <-- assigned a code block just fine
>> do code-blk
== ok                            <-- looks good so far 
>> print code-blk

== ok                           <-- Nope that isn't what I was looking 
for, but I understand why since it is like print the results of print 
"ok"
>> print form code-blk

== print ok                  <-- getting closer to what I desire, 
but the quotes are missing
>> print mold form code-blk

== "print ok"               <-- not what I desired   -- I want the 
original code block to be printed as   print "ok" with the quotes

Any ideas on how to fix this?

source code-blk

>> source code-blk

code-blk: [print "ok"]        <-- My goal is to just get     print 
"ok"    


Another way to pose the question is    How can I convert the entire 
contents of a block, including spaces, into a string?

have a look at source source

Ahhh, you are right Graham, since SOURCE did print the correct string 
somehow!  Will dig into it

>> print mold code-blk
[print "ok"]
>> print head remove back tail remove mold code-blk
print "ok"