World: r3wp

I'm beginning to think so too, especially as (from my reading of 
the function), these two should be equivalent
trim/head/trail "  a  ^/  ^/  a  "
trim"  a  ^/  ^/  a  "

Hence why I always use trim/head/tail...  I didn't think it was a 
bug, though, since your first example - trim "  a  ^/  ^/  a  " - 
could be a shortcut for data files..  Trimming each line.

Sunanda, I think, from memory of old conversation, that the default 
TRIM behaviour is particular and just insufficiently documented. 
It's annoying, chuck it in RAMBO to specify exact behaviour in doc 
string.

On windows platforms, you'll get the infamous DOS window flashing 
when executing an external CGI ! It's just a matter of 1 flag to 
correctly set in 'call C source code, if you're really annoyed by 
that, ask RT to fix it asap (for 2.7.6 that would be good)! ;-) I 
may reimplement completely call command in REBOL, but it would be 
a big waste of time and energy...it should be a 10 minutes fix for 
RT. Addind a time limit to 'call would be a good thing too, it would 
also avoid me the reimplementation of 'call to add such feature....
 - DocKimbel

Anx chance of getting above fixed? Should we rambo it?

wouldn't hurt :-)

I think that it's already in RAMBO

then it's probably been forgotten in Gabriele's priority list for 
2.7.6.

RAMBO lacks a free commenting support...

Re my trim question of a week or so ago....
Thanks for the responses.
From RAMBO it seems this is deliberate (if unexpected) behavior:
http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/rambo.r?id=3681

This is intentional and not a bug. TRIM was designed that way to 
work well for trimming LINES of text. 
 [my emphasis of lineS, plural]

DocKimbel, #4288 looks to me like it inserts a molded object into 
the path.

or perhaps form

Yes, it returns the object source and the point is is this useful 
to anyone ? I was hoping the behaviour of :b in a path! could be 
changed to something more useful, like acting as a pass-thru to /c, 
so that, in the ticket example, a/:b/c would results in %path/target.

slipping objects into a path...

>> a: %path
== %path
>> b: context [c: %target]
>> a/:b/c
== %path/c: %target%0A/c
>> a/(:b/c)
== %path/target

Great! I've forgot paren! evaluation in paths.

btw, a/(:b/c) is quite heavy => 3 series instead of 1.

yes, but semantically a/:b/c is a/(b)/c not a/(b/c) which is what 
you want.

Do we still bother reporting to RAMBO?  Is there any expecations 
for a production 2.7.6?  I'd vote; please please please.

[ 4322 ] can be closed

[ 4321 ] can be closed

Norman, could you please elaborate? It might help people noticing 
the same thing.

yes sure... [ 4322 ]  SDl 276 was recompiled for both kernel 2.4 
and kernel 2.6 [DEBIAN] (previously only kernel 2.6 was compiled) 
and they worked here. I cant confirm on ubuntu as its not my flavor 
of yoghurt ;-)

[ 4321 ] this is actualy  a borderliner.. Im not sure this is default 
behavior in windows or not, liinux does not have this problem, could 
stay open..

thanks.

.

Looks like RAMBO needs to be cleaned from spam posts...

I've just run in a bug in enface.exe (2.7.6.3.1). The following code 
doesn't give the same result if run under view  or encapped with 
enface :

REBOL []
probe type? first [#[none]]
halt

rebview => none!  (correct result)

enface => word!

rebview and enface are both 2.7.6.3.1

Should I RAMBO that ? Is RAMBO still used ?

RAMBO is still used for R2 bugs, yes.

It sounds like the preprocessing is loading and molding the code 
before encapping, without using mold/all.

I think this might be in RAMBO already. At least I remember mentioning 
this problem to Carl a few years back. As Brian says, it's a missing 
/ALL refinement.

About the spam, I clean that up every single day. What you see is 
one day worth of spam.

is it all human spam?  or bot spam?

can you add a rebol captcha to it  to save you work?

given that there is not much protection in rambo, it's probably bot 
spam.

the main thing is, that changing rambo (i don't know the code) would 
take me more time (especially testing and making sure we're not going 
to lose data) than the 20 seconds or so it takes to delete the spam. 
So I never get to study the code and see what can be done...

I verified this same bug today http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/rambo.r?id=3357&
 The workaround is to use /binary and then the limit is gone.

I've searched RAMBO about a WAIT inconsistency : the dictionnary 
says that "If the value is a DATE/TIME, wait until that DATE/TIME", 
but date! are not accepted as argument (both directly or in a block). 
If this a known bug? I can't find it in RAMBO.

doesn't it mean a time value?

It's probably a documentation issue.

Being able to wait for specified date/time would be great for doing 
cron

Precisely, I'm working on a scheduler lib for UniServe and I was 
wondering if I could wait for date!, but it looks like not.

would be good feature to have at least in R3 ...

good idea. create a curecode wish for it, please.

You can't wait on date! AFAIK.

wait-date: func [date [date!]][wait difference date now]