World: r3wp

(and maybe there's a "simple mode" and a "windows mode" the printer 
can go into)

That is pretty crazy Allen. Doesn't seem like it could be too hard 
to do.

Graham, in the old days you would use the Escape+passthrough API, 
but that's been frowned on for quite a while now. Have you tried 
writing to %//PRN ? With more API work (OpenPrinter), you can use 
spooler functions like EndPagePrinter or WritePrinter too.

the problem is I don't have a windows driver for this printer so 
I am experimenting to see what type of controls it understands.

There is no manual, and the windows drivers are password protected 
on the manufacturer's website!

Give us the printer model. May be someone here...

I doubt it .. but here it is .. Addmaster IJ3000

http://www.addmaster.com

It looks like it accepts similar escape sequences as esc/pos ... 
but the application I'm using won't flush the printer buffer without 
closing the application down.

graham: check the serial parameters

Let me rephrase that.  I am using a POS program which I downloaded. 
 When it prints a receipt to my serial printer, it fails to cause 
the printer to print the full printer buffer.  But when I close the 
POS program down, the printer then spits out the rest.


I have downloaded the Builder C++  source ( but it won't compile 
without errors :(    ).  I thought I would try and use Rebol first 
to send commands to the  printer to see what I need to do to force 
the printer to print the contents of it's buffer.  It's not the pc 
buffer as I turned off the fifo buffers in the serial port settings 
to see what the problem was.

Does your printer finish the job, if your POS program sends a new 
page or a new job?
Can you manually force a linefeed on your printer?

Sorry, I meant
Can you force a FF formfeed on your printer?

If you can issue a DOS command (REBOL/Command or some betas with 
Call enabled), try this:
    echo ^l > prn
(That's a ctrl+L character, not a caret then L)
That should force a form feed

Looks like the POS program locks the serial port until it closes 
down :(

port: make port! [scheme: 'tcp
                  host: 127.0.0.1
                  port-id: 80     ]
            
               



open port


clone: func [port /local clone ]
               [ clone: make port [ scheme: 'tcp  ]
                 open clone

                 clone/port-id: port/port-id
                 clone/state: port/state
                 clone/local-ip: port/local-ip
                 clone/remote-ip: port/remote-ip
                 clone/local-port: port/local-port
                 clone/remote-port: port/remote-port 
                                      
          
                 return clone ]
 


port/sub-port: clone port

probe port

how do to check or cloned harbour is open ?how do to check or cloned 
harbour is open ?how do to check or cloned harbour is open ?how do 
to check or cloned harbour is open ?

attempt [query port] probe port/status

no no no - sorry... does not work...

>> value? in port/sub-port/state 'inBuffer
== true
>> close port
>> value? in port/sub-port/state 'inBuffer
== false

Or maybe better to check   port/state/flags  or  port/sub-port/state/flags 
...... <---- need to investigate

Ahh... Best way might be to try to open port:

port: make port! http://www.rebol.net

print either error? try [open port]["open -> open"]["closed -> open"]

What's the best way to rethrow an error that you have caught and 
disarmed ?

;Like this ?
port: make port! http://www.rebol.net

if error? err: try [open port][err: disarm err throw make error! 
reduce [err/type err/id]] ; do this line twice

try:
>> errd: disarm err: try [ 2 / 0] errd/near: [new-near] err
** Math Error: Attempt to divide by zero
** Near: new-near

'disarm makes a copy. just throw the original error.

is there an easy way to pad zeros on time! values? as in 04:17:00 
rather than having 4:17 displayed

never mind, I figured one out. it was of course simpler than I thought 
:-)

henrik, try out to-itime in the new 1.2.108

was this added on my request? :-)

because it does exactly what I need

:-)

>> to-itime/precise now/time
== "06:39:2.0"

should this not have returned  "06:39:02.0"

bad
>> to-itime/precise now/time
== "13:47:0.0"

worse
>> to-itime/precise now/time/precise
== "13:46:4E-2"

For Post 1.3 discussion (moved here from the Debug 1.3 group) ...


What would your "perfect" FOR interface look like (anyone and everyone)? 
For me, I want it to hide the mechanical details more than CFOR does, 
and is nicer to read than the current FOR (for i 1 9 1 [...]). It 
might look like this:

for [i: from 1 to 9]	[...]
for [i: 1 .. 9 step 2]	[...]
for [i from 1..9 step 3]	[...]
for [i: 1 — 9 step 4]	[...]
for [i 0 to 1 step .1]	[...]

or maybe move the word outside the block:

for i [1 to 9]		[...]
for i [1 to 9 step 2]	[...]


Python has an Else clause, though it works backwards from what I 
expect it to; the idea is to have a clause that executes if 'break 
is used. It also has a Continue op that jumps to the head of the 
body for the next iteration.

I agree with Volker and Ladislav about the value of getting the stepping/increment 
code out of the body. I agree so much, I think it should be hidden 
entirely. :-)

The most common case, by far, is to step by one, so you should be 
able to omit that IMO.

cfor is not only about counting, but about anything like a "step". 
it may be counting, or stepping through a list by pos: next pos, 
or whatever. that can't be captured by better hiding.

Gregg: said "The most common case, by far, is to step by one, so 
you should be able to omit that IMO. " , for the most common situations, 
you would use REPEAT or LOOP. I virtually never use FOR, except if 
I'm thinking in some other language

for me, FOR is only there when one of the native looping structures 
doesn't suffice. 

But I do like then dialect options you present. My pref would be 
to keep the value outside (to keep closer to foreach syntax)., 
ie  for i [1 to 9 step 2][..]

I rarely use it myself Allen. The only reason I really think it's 
important at all is that new people coming to REBOL will look for 
FOR. Need to add a doc section on native verus mezz control functions.

Volker, it should operate on series values as well, like FOR does 
today. My examples are all numbers, because that's easier to do concisely. 
:-)

The only time I use FOR today is when I need to:
	a) start at a number other than 1
	b) step by a increment other than one.
	c) brevity and clarity is more important than performance.

If REPEAT had /start and /skip refinements...

assume: func [
    {If a value is not in a series, append it.}
    series [series! port!]
    value
][
    any [find series value insert tail series :value]
]

I propose this new function for Core. check the return values in 
both cases.

As imho is the case with ALTER, ASSUME in my ears sounds too general 
to give a hint to it's functionality just by it's name. 

A function like the one you suggest seems very useful to me, though. 
How's about APPEND-ONCE (could even be APPEND/ONCE on mezzanine level).

I'm losing my mind here ... my Linux rebol scripts just aren't working 
unless I invoke rebol directly myself.

debugging: IIRC I once asked this question already but can't remember 
the answer. Is it possible from inside a function to get the set-word 
this code is bound to? I would like to be able to print the set-word 
for debugging call-traces.