World: r3wp
[RAMBO] The REBOL bug and enhancement database
older newer | first last |
Henrik 16-Jul-2007 [3115] | >> a: %path == %path >> b: context [c: %target] >> a/:b/c == %path/c: %target%0A/c >> a/(:b/c) == %path/target |
Dockimbel 16-Jul-2007 [3116x2] | Great! I've forgot paren! evaluation in paths. |
btw, a/(:b/c) is quite heavy => 3 series instead of 1. | |
Gabriele 17-Jul-2007 [3118] | yes, but semantically a/:b/c is a/(b)/c not a/(b/c) which is what you want. |
btiffin 20-Sep-2007 [3119] | Do we still bother reporting to RAMBO? Is there any expecations for a production 2.7.6? I'd vote; please please please. |
NormanDep 5-Apr-2008 [3120x2] | [ 4322 ] can be closed |
[ 4321 ] can be closed | |
Gabriele 6-Apr-2008 [3122] | Norman, could you please elaborate? It might help people noticing the same thing. |
NormanDep 6-Apr-2008 [3123x2] | 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.. | |
Gabriele 7-Apr-2008 [3125] | thanks. |
Alan 14-Sep-2008 [3126] | . |
Dockimbel 13-Oct-2008 [3127x7] | 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 ? | |
Henrik 13-Oct-2008 [3134] | RAMBO is still used for R2 bugs, yes. |
BrianH 13-Oct-2008 [3135] | It sounds like the preprocessing is loading and molding the code before encapping, without using mold/all. |
Gabriele 14-Oct-2008 [3136x2] | 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. | |
Graham 14-Oct-2008 [3138x2] | is it all human spam? or bot spam? |
can you add a rebol captcha to it to save you work? | |
Gabriele 14-Oct-2008 [3140x2] | 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... | |
[unknown: 5] 11-Jan-2009 [3142] | 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. |
Dockimbel 14-Aug-2009 [3143] | 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. |
Graham 14-Aug-2009 [3144x3] | 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 | |
Dockimbel 14-Aug-2009 [3147] | 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. |
Pekr 14-Aug-2009 [3148] | would be good feature to have at least in R3 ... |
Henrik 14-Aug-2009 [3149] | good idea. create a curecode wish for it, please. |
Gregg 21-Aug-2009 [3150] | You can't wait on date! AFAIK. |
Oldes 22-Aug-2009 [3151] | wait-date: func [date [date!]][wait difference date now] |
Maxim 22-Aug-2009 [3152] | always someone to prove another wrong... ;-) |
Gregg 23-Aug-2009 [3153] | An excellent solution, but you still can't wait on a date!. :-) |
Oldes 23-Aug-2009 [3154] | I agree, that it should be supported directly, so is there the ticket already? |
Graham 23-Aug-2009 [3155x2] | what happens if someone changes the clock while you're waiting on a date! ? |
what should? | |
PeterWood 23-Aug-2009 [3157x2] | What happens if someone changes the machine's clock while you wating for a length of time ? |
you -> you're | |
Gabriele 24-Aug-2009 [3159] | graham, the only solution to that would be to wait, say, 10 seconds at a time, and check. but it really depends on the application... |
btiffin 24-Aug-2009 [3160] | re; wait till time, isn't that add multiply subtract then/date now/date 86400 subtract then/time now/time then - now * seconds per day + delta hours? Negative time! possible, which it seems wait takes as zero anyway. |
Gabriele 25-Aug-2009 [3161x2] | btiffin, just use difference now then |
(or difference now/precise then if necessary) | |
btiffin 25-Aug-2009 [3163] | Thanks Gabriele; I knew there was a more concise method of getting at time! from date arithmetic, but I got sidetracked when the google search wanted to show me COBOL data arithmetic. ;) Can't ever know enough COBOL, err, aaah, REBOL. |
Nicolas 1-Mar-2010 [3164] | This hangs. |
older newer | first last |