World: r3wp

Perhaps close the sub-port and re-open using the redirected url?

Looks like that's what the standard prot-http does.  It checks for 
circular references as well

Perhaps we can persuade Gab to take a break from his Rebol compiler 
to complete the protocol :)

Which reminds me .. what will it take to add proxy support to R3's 
 tcp ?

It seems there are more bugs in the string conversion utilities. 
the problem also exists when converting from UFT8 to ISO-8859-1.

never mind, it was a part I had forgotten to fix.

Graham, Gab.: you are right, never checked that MOLD works like that 
on longer strings. I will remember that now.

But anyway... when you need to do call on unknown files, you should 
use more soficticated way.
Using just:
	rejoin [{"} to-local-file file {"}]

I consider as as security thread and I would never used it like that. 
And it does not metter if using MOLD or not.

Not to sound doom and gloom, but I see little evidence that we will 
get a single platform we can all write to so we can focus on a free 
market war of "best products" as opposed to a private war between 
the biggest companies (Apple, Microsoft, etc.).

We are pawns in THEIR game until we have standards enforced.

Oldes, I am using this to create a parameter to another program ... 
there's no security risk.

One never knows:)
What about something like that:

>> file: {^" call ^"something else } rejoin [{call "} to-local-file 
file {"}]
== {call "" call "something else "}

I look at the file extensions and create the batch file based on 
that .. .so nothing nasty is going to happen :)

Anyone see any value in creating async network protocols for R2 based 
on Gab's async-protocol?  It really seems if we are going to be using 
R2 for much longer still.

if so, they must be properly documented.

If so what?

It seems to me we need a contingency plan for the possible failure 
of R3 ( all IT projects have high failure rates and R3 is no different 
).  And so we need to develop R2 as much as we can.

The reasoning would be that existing R2 software that won't be moved 
to R2 can move to an async model.

eh?

won't be moved to R3. sorry.

Not only that but we all need to get experience with developing apps 
that use async protocols

yes, true

But, in the case of a lack of documentation: I'm in a hurry, more 
often than I want to be, having to implement something that needs 
to be used in a few hours, and so I don't want to spend hours studying 
the source code, no matter how self-explanatory, the author claims 
the software is.

To use async on R2, I used to use Uniserve engine.

Once upon a time, France used a Web forum that had an XMLRPC interface 
and I coded a Rebol client that was able to monitor activity and 
send post on the forum asynchronously. It was a happy time...

and why doesn't it work anymore?

I remember that  ...

But using the Uniserve engine seems overkill :)

Maxim : the web site is dead ! So the script is useless now !

ah well.

Oldes, indeed, one should pass CALL a block and let it do the conversion 
(because it is platform dependent) - though right now I don't think 
it does much more than to-local-file and adding quotes.

I have updated str-enc-utils.r at rebol.org with the bug fix that 
Henrik kindly provided.

sort function can sort  pairs but < and > leads error? don't you 
think it would be better if < gives same result with sort?
sort [10x4 23x2]
>> [23x2 10x4] ;sorted y-first
10x4 > 23x2
>> ** Script Error: Expected one of: pair! - not: pair!
and it is a little bit strange error, expects pair, not pair?

yes, that error is not good, see the R3, where the error is:

>> 10x4 > 23x2
** Script error: cannot compare pair! with pair!
** Where: >
** Near: > 23x2

Sortability and sort order are (in REBOL) distinct from comparability.
See this curecode report and the response for example:
   http://curecode.org/rebol3/ticket.rsp?id=1150

in the #1150 the response is missing the point, as I see it, mistaking 
#[datatype! unset!] and #[unset!]

sort order for different datatypes is a more complex issue, but comparing 
pair to pair should be consistent with sort I guess.

I mean
= 4x3 4x3
>> true
< 4x3 4x3
>> error

What do you think about this:

>> even? 2.1
== true


As far as I am concerned, I would call it a bug, since 2.1 does not 
look like an integer multiple of 2.0 to me.

bug

Unsure if it's a bug or I'm not getting something: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3068467/why-cant-i-bind-things-like-email-in-the-global-context-on-interpreter-startup

In the VM I'm running, AltME messed up the link again after email-in-t.

If anyone using this language actually cares about communicating 
with other beings - the Rebol tag on Stackoverflow is a feed you 
can add to your reader - http://stackoverflow.com/feeds/tag?tagnames=rebol&sort=newest

Answered.

hmm, another reason why not to manipulate words using strings; if 
you used words, you would not have observed any strangenesses

what needs to be answered is *why* you had to (?) use the string?

Yes he would have - the problem was independent of using the string. 
But it would have been less obvious if he had used a word from the 
beginning. Good opportunity for an object lesson though: He was asking 
about a "global context" in R3.

>> is-email-addr: get bind 'email? bind? 'system

(just works, no strangenesses)

Ah, but that is assuming that the code is run at the top level. Judging 
by that particular code snippet, it looks like something from inside 
a function, and one that is likely in a context has 'email? already 
defined. Still, the fact that INTERN is already run on normal scripts 
(and the module equivalent run on modules) means that he likely wouldn't 
need to do this with the main contexts, just inner contexts.

did you mean this?


>> f: func [/local email?] [is-email-addr: get bind 'email? bind? 
'system]
>> f

Yeah, something like that. I added a question about using words instead 
of strings.

so, I have to insist, that everybody using strings instead of words 
deserves every disaster he gets for not adhering to documented "best 
practices"