World: r3wp

If I have to make a custom function to get consistent behaviour then 
I might as well just use WRITE. :-)

note: save/all and load/all are unrelated, and they were added at 
different times.

also, if you are using load/all, you will need mold/only/all on the 
example above. the /all in mold is unrelated to the /all in load 
and means that all values are serialized.

Yes, I agree that the difference in behavior makes it more painful.

From the Orca channel .. it would be good to set up a way of "voting" 
or other way of determining of what are the priorities for *developers* 
that RT should focus on.

Agreed.

Ah that's very interesting !  I had the strong impression load/all 
and save/all were supposed to be orthogonal, even though I had read 
the function help for each one.

Maybe it is my failing ? Am I so stubborn to continue to try to make 
something work the way I imagined it, instead of considering that 
  maybe it just won't work that way, and to look around for the (what 
should have been) obvious alternatives ?

REBOL/Command 2.5.125.3.1
Copyright 1997-2005 REBOL Technologies

>> write clipboard:// "test"
** Access Error: Invalid port spec: clipboard://
** Near: write clipboard:// "test"
>> read clipboard://
** Access Error: Invalid port spec: clipboard://
** Near: read clipboard://

(That's running on Windows XP Media Center...)

clipboard:// just works with View. Did you try /Command/View ?

Hi, i just posted a new bug on rambo: When calling 'request-file 
and clicking on Cancel, the value returned is %none instead of none 
--> makes more complicated to test the returned value. I tested under 
Windows XP

>> type? request-file
== none!

Well, you are right, from the console, it is ok, but try from a script... 
I have %none and file! as as result

My mistake!!! Sorry!

It works, indeed...

Just send a feedback to RT to ask them to disregard the rambo ticket

deleted

Interesting memory-bug

filet!: context [filet: none]
spec: [filet: 1]
fil: make filet! spec
recycle probe stats
repeat i 10000[
 fil: make make filet! spec fil
]
recycle probe stats
repeat i 10000[
 fil: make make filet! spec third fil
]
recycle probe stats

make object! object! does not release.
make object third object! does.
(thats like make object! block!

linux 1.3.2

Is this repeatable, and clear enough for rambo?

Do you want me to test in OSX?

Good idea.

I don't understand the error. Do you want the output I am getting?

Yes.

Its three memory-stats (after recycle).

all should be same, or similar low.

the second is a lot higher, because the objects from the first loop 
are not relased.

Well after the make I get errors.

The data is:
run1: 1716394
run2: 3396726
run3: 1717126

Thanks. That confirms the bug.

Niow i need a good description..

I think the description is precise enough. make object! object! Not 
releaseing is bad. (Dangling pointers)

Good catch.

hmm, but memory is released at the next non object-object make, no?

Seems so. But i had a memory-leak by this. Seems making objects is 
not that common when the gui is set up. Then extend incomming objects 
with a default one, in that case it drove me mad.

Anyone had problems with 'switch and datatype! I've reduced the problem 
down to:

t: func [v] [
	select [
		#[datatype! integer!]	["A"]
		#[datatype! decimal!]	["B"]
		#[datatype! block!]	["C"]
	] type? v
]

>> t 1
== ["A"]
>> t 1.0
== ["B"]
>> t []
== decimal!

Unless there's an obvious explanation, I'll RAMBO it.

the explanation is this:

>> find [1 a []] block!
== [[]]
>> find [1 a []] word!
== [a []]
>> find [1 a []] integer!
== [1 a []]

so, use type?/word

Is this intended?
>> all [true true true]
== true
>> all [true true false]
== none
>> all [false false false]
== none

Why don't I get back FALSE in the 2nd and 3rd case?

hmm, strange, it should be false imo :-)

RAMBO it, please, they will dismiss it at max, if it is not a bug, 
but I think it is ...

Ok, submitted.

not sure if it can be said to be a bug, but i see the reasoning about 
wanting false there, so maybe it can be changed.

Thanks Gabriele, *so* obvious in hindsight (my workaround was to 
move the block! condition to the top of the list, but type?/word 
is a good refinement to remember!)

If all [true true false] should return false, all [true true none] 
should return false or none ?