r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[Core] Discuss core issues

Graham
30-Sep-2009
[14799]
copy/part what-dir 3

is shorter
BrianH
30-Sep-2009
[14800]
On Windows: read %//
Graham
30-Sep-2009
[14801x2]
sorry ... I meant I want %/c/   ... and not read the directory
ie. want the path
BrianH
30-Sep-2009
[14803x2]
Then your second method is best, unless you are on a UNC path, then 
try this: copy/part find/tail next what-dir "/"
Sorry, this:
rootdir: copy/part rootdir: what-dir find/tail next rootdir "/"
Sunanda
30-Sep-2009
[14805]
Does this do it?
    clean-path %//
BrianH
30-Sep-2009
[14806x3]
It should. It does on R3. Let me try it on R2.
Yup. On R3 it's slower though, sincee clean-path is mezz.
On R3 the fastest way is this: head clear find/tail next what-dir 
"/"
Graham
30-Sep-2009
[14809x2]
http://rebol.wik.is/Cheyenne/Upload-file.rsp
don't think I'll need UNC path support :)
BrianH
30-Sep-2009
[14811]
I use it a lot :)
Graham
30-Sep-2009
[14812]
on a web server?
BrianH
30-Sep-2009
[14813]
Nope - remote file manipulation. UNC paths are for Windows shares, 
not web shares.
Henrik
4-Oct-2009
[14814]
Ratio is giving me good opportunities to sharpen my skills. While 
writing a post, I bumped into this:

http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=substr.r

What do you think? :-)
Dockimbel
4-Oct-2009
[14815]
From the script header: Purpose: "Working around string series"...I 
think that this is shooting yourself in the foot.
Graham
8-Oct-2009
[14816]
Don't you think this is a little inconsistent?

>> a: ""
== ""
>> a/1
== none
>> last a
** Script Error: Out of range or past end
** Near: last a
>>
Dockimbel
8-Oct-2009
[14817]
IIRC, Carl explained (at least) once that this behaviour is different 
on purpose. Using path notation with an index value or PICK should 
return NONE while using the prefix notation FIRST, SECOND,...LAST 
should return an error. So you have the choice to either silently 
handle missing values in series or raise an error!.
BrianH
8-Oct-2009
[14818x2]
In R3 it is consistent.
>> a: ""
== ""
>> a/1
== none
>> last a
== none
Will
15-Oct-2009
[14820x2]
SYSTEM/SCHEMES/FTP/PASS is a none of value: none
  set-net ['abc]
  ? system/schemes/ftp/pass
SYSTEM/SCHEMES/FTP/PASS is a string of value: "abc"
the documentation says "The first value is your email address and 
it is used when sending email and connecting to FTP. This value is 
stored in the REBOL system object at: SYSTEM/USER/EMAIL".

I don't think it's a good idea that the ftp password will be set 
to the email address as well, "used when connecting to FTP" maybe 
it should set the user instead
Graham
16-Oct-2009
[14822]
that's the way it used to be done
Gabriele
16-Oct-2009
[14823]
the convention for anonymous FTP is to provide "anonymous" as the 
user and the email address as the password.
Maxim
17-Oct-2009
[14824x6]
I am having a very hard time build a low-level function which reduces 
only bound words.
the bound? function is useless, it returns the global context when 
it hits a new word, cause it defines the word as it scans it.
value? doesn't see the word, only its label, which in parse rules 
collides heavily with standard rules.
any one can give me ideas?
unset? always returns false, cause it pretty much only matches non-returning 
functions like print, but you have to evaluate them to know, so its 
useless again.
so far this seems to be impossible to resolve in R2    >:-(
Steeve
17-Oct-2009
[14830]
can you give an example of the expected result ?
Maxim
17-Oct-2009
[14831x2]
false == (some magic trick) first load "[any]"
true == (same magic trick) first append [] in system/words 'any


the first is just an unbound word, using the string just makes this 
explicit beyond doubt.
the second is the actual word func. added to a block.
or are all words bound to the global context by default, making this 
impossible... as I think.
Steeve
17-Oct-2009
[14833]
you mea, you want to construct a block with ANY unbound to a context 
?
Maxim
17-Oct-2009
[14834]
maybe I can just do this :

same? bound? first load "[any]" system/words 

 and assume I'm not actually using global words in my blocks...
Steeve
17-Oct-2009
[14835x2]
>> value? first to-block "any"
== false
in that exemple, ANY is not bound
Maxim
17-Oct-2009
[14837]
let me check something... it might add to the confusion  :-)
Steeve
17-Oct-2009
[14838x2]
to-block, do like LOAD, except it doesn't bound the words in the 
global context
>> do probe to-block "1 + 1"
[1 + 1]
** Script Error: + word has no context
** Near: 1 + 1
Maxim
17-Oct-2009
[14840x2]
>> value? first to-block "[any {a}]"
== true
this is whacky
Steeve
17-Oct-2009
[14842x2]
lol
>> value? first to-block "any {a}"
== false
Maxim
17-Oct-2009
[14844]
I know... very broken.
Steeve
17-Oct-2009
[14845]
No,  you must remove the brackets
Maxim
17-Oct-2009
[14846x2]
but my data HAS inner blocks.
this is just plain dumb.
Pekr
17-Oct-2009
[14848]
the result is of course correct ..