World: r3wp
[RAMBO] The REBOL bug and enhancement database
older newer | first last |
BrianH 14-Feb-2007 [2765] | Wow, when did they add that system option? The things I miss... |
PeterWood 14-Feb-2007 [2766] | Anton: I thinl you're right to add it to rambo Brian: It's in Core 2.5.6 so I'd guess it was some time ago. |
BrianH 14-Feb-2007 [2767] | Showing my age again, I suppose :) |
Gabriele 15-Feb-2007 [2768] | launch uses system/options/boot (so, it was there as long as launch ;) |
Graham 15-Feb-2007 [2769] | so, is launch just a short hand form of call ? |
Anton 15-Feb-2007 [2770x2] | I don't think so, their different refinements seem to indicate they have different usages. |
Ok, submitted a ticket. | |
Volker 16-Feb-2007 [2772] | short hand, yes.but also, not blocked by security. since you can only launch rebol-scripts. |
Maxim 16-Feb-2007 [2773] | I also recall reading that a launched script cannot launch a script of its own. something about preventing scripts from the desktop to launch other scripts, as a security measure, IIRC. |
Anton 16-Feb-2007 [2774] | That restriction was removed fairly recently (about a year ago ?). |
Maxim 22-Feb-2007 [2775x3] | eeek... make date allows 0 values ! |
>> make date! [0 0 0] == 30-Nov-65535 >> make date! [0 0 1] == 30-Nov-0000 >> make date! [75 0 1] == 13-Feb-0001 >> make date! [01 0 75] == 1-Dec-0074 sorry, but these make dates are just funny. 0 becomes a negative offset in time in some instances... like the last. should I RAMBO this? I would expect make date to accept only one 0 value, being the year... any other 0 makes no sense. | |
btw, I looked and didn't find this strange behaviour being notified on RAMBO... | |
Gregg 23-Feb-2007 [2778] | Negative offsets can actually be very useful, when creating relative dates. The thing I don't like about the zero behavior is that it's non-intuitive. i.e. using zero produces a negative result, where you would think -1 would be what you want to use. Other than that, it's just something to be aware of, not a bug IMO. |
Oldes 26-Feb-2007 [2779x2] | Reading existing http url returns just empty string if exists? function is called on non existing url before - Rebol/View (1.3.2.3.1) Is this know bug? |
>> system/version == 1.3.2.3.1 >> exists? http://www.rebol.com/donwload/rebol3.exe connecting to: www.rebol.com == false >> print read http://www.rebol.com/ connecting to: www.rebol.com >> | |
Maxim 26-Feb-2007 [2781x2] | oh.... you've just stumbled on something which might be related to something I discovered last week on command! but strangely, this is new behaviour for me... so it might be related to server swap. and the fact that now, an URL does not exist anymore! you might just have resolved a clueless issue. especially since the exists? command seemed to work on new console issues. I will make other tests and confirm is I just discovered the same bug than you! |
(ignore "issues" word above) | |
Oldes 26-Feb-2007 [2783] | it's already fixed: http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/rambo.r?id=4039& |
Maxim 26-Feb-2007 [2784x2] | but btw... in my bug (which might or not be the same) it does not only corrupt the http protocol... the whole exists? cmd is down, since I am testing files in my case! |
have you tried the same thing in 2.7? | |
Graham 26-Feb-2007 [2786] | Oldes, you're a year late with that bug report :) |
Oldes 26-Feb-2007 [2787] | Ok... now I don't know, what is worst - if I'm late or the fix is late? |
Graham 26-Feb-2007 [2788] | Isn't it fixed?? |
Maxim 26-Feb-2007 [2789] | I think he meant... its not in 1.3.2 release |
Graham 26-Feb-2007 [2790] | well, it's likely to be a mezzanine .. ? |
Maxim 26-Feb-2007 [2791] | exists? is, we'd have to look closer to see if this can be applied... the port stuff itself is not always trivial to patch... |
Gabriele 26-Feb-2007 [2792] | the fix for that is what "caused" the read/binary bug in 2.7. (rather than "caused", it exposed a native bug when calling handler functions.) |
Anton 4-Mar-2007 [2793x5] | Regarding #3867 "feel/detect event/face should be target face, not face" http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/rambo.r?id=3867 |
I realised when mimicking the behaviour of DO EVENT, that the reason the target face is not given is because its impossible to know at the time DETECT is called. Events travel down through the face hierarchy through the DETECT functions, the evaluation of which could have an effect on the result. The DETECT function can block events or allow them through, depending on the result they return, which is programmable and therefore dynamic. So a DETECT function higher up in the face hierarchy which is evaluated before a DETECT lower in the face hierarchy cannot know which is the target-face, because the result of the lower DETECT may change the target-face. | |
Therefore, I now see this as either a major design issue or a documentation error requiring some clarification. I don't think it is likely to be implemented (not in R2, anyway) because that would probably require an overhaul of the event system, and would likely break a lot of stuff. | |
The question is: do we want determinism or dynamism in this case ? :-/ | |
I think we don't want to lose dynamism. | |
Ashley 4-Mar-2007 [2798] | In most cases it is sufficient to know which face is under the mouse cursor at the time of the detect event. Coded as a mezz this is pretty slow. |
Henrik 6-Mar-2007 [2799] | seems the spam bots have figured out how to submit "bugreports"... |
Anton 6-Mar-2007 [2800] | Yeah they figured that out long ago... RT have been filtering them manually I think. |
Maxim 6-Mar-2007 [2801] | why dont RT add a captcha? ... it easy with rebol and the draw command. |
Sunanda 6-Mar-2007 [2802] | A guess: the web site is probably running a /core version -- /view versions used to not work well in CGI environments (though that may have changed). /core has no draw ability. |
Graham 6-Mar-2007 [2803x2] | A math based captcha doesn't require draw |
Or, the images could be pre-generated | |
Maxim 6-Mar-2007 [2805] | doesn't core support the draw native? which can draw directly on an image datatype. |
Oldes 6-Mar-2007 [2806x2] | Or the form inserted using javascript |
(at least the submit button) | |
Gabriele 7-Mar-2007 [2808] | i've just been in bed with a flu for the last few days, so noone has been deleting spam :) |
Graham 7-Mar-2007 [2809x2] | Wouldn't it be a little easier to add a captcha to the script ? |
Or, even simpler, just add my smtp challenge script to validate the email address? | |
Oldes 7-Mar-2007 [2811x2] | I think, that email validation is so often required that every bot must know how to fill field named EMAIL |
I really don't know, why everybody must be forced to rewrite some letters or do basic math only because of a few idiots. Just block their IPs or give the captcha only to some of these IP ranges (if you think, that there still can be someone innocent). That's what I would do. | |
Henrik 7-Mar-2007 [2813] | how can you possibly be sure that the IP does not contain a zombie spam bot that posts to the site as well as real posters? |
Oldes 7-Mar-2007 [2814] | that's why I say - give the captchas only to users from these IPs |
older newer | first last |