World: r3wp

check the latest INCLUDE now, http://www.fm.vslib.cz/~ladislav/rebol/include.r

How do you include "include.r" in your projects? Something like putting 
it in the home directory and type:
do join system/options/home %include.r

It should be part of REBOL.

yes, I put it in %user.r together with a definition of a suitable 
INCLUDE-PATH

OTOH, if you mean how can I build a script containing INCLUDE, it 
can be done too, the easiest way is to use #include-string for that 
to prevent the "execution" of the preprocessor instructions defined 
in %include.r

The new Core 2.6.0 in View 1.3 is running the user.r found by the 
environment variable APPDATA, it seems. On my Windows computer, it's 
in C:\Documents and Settings\John\Application Data\rebol\ , even 
if I install REBOL/View in E:\rebol\view\. Is it a good way of doing 
it? I find it a bit confusing.

WinXP, that is. I wonder, how it is under Win98, Win2000 and Linux?

Thank you Ladislav.  More than I had hoped for.   p.s. is there much 
of a penalty for using include/check instead of include?

I didn't measure that but it doesn't matter to me, because Include 
isn't used often anyway

I think, that it is unnoticeable

the slowest part of INCLUDE work is read anyway

Great then I will use include/check as the default usage and may 
save some slow file access time in sub-modules.  Thanks again.

Geomol: you should be able to change the location of user.r and so 
on during installation (note that installation location and user 
files location are two different places, but can be set to the same 
dir)

Geomol: This way the executable may reside on a readonly file system. 
Sounds good to me.

Geomol, that way of locating user.r on Windows is really for the 
best. Windows is a multiuser OS after all, and the APPDATA directory 
on Windows is used roughly the same as the home directory on Linux. 
Global settings can be loaded from rebol.r in the same directory 
as the View executable.

I see, thanks!

Geomol, I have an include system as well.  It doesn't check for already 
loaded scripts but you may want to look at it.
http://www.lexicon.net/antonr/rebol/library/include.r

Can't find www.lexicon.net, it seems.

URL is correct, perhaps try again later.

I would like once again, if find/match on blocks has correct behavior? 

blk: ["Petr Krenzelok" "Richard Smolak" "Ladislav Mecir"]
find/match blk "Richar"


... will not work, and I would expect it to. At least RebDB gives 
me such functionality and it is nice to have ...

doesn't find/match only work on a per element basis? otherwise it 
would be much more complex... if not strings, how would you search 
words, objects, integers, etc.?

if it would work on per-element basis, it would work ...

actually I want someone to explain me, how is supposed find/match 
to work with blocks, if it was ever supposed to work? ;-)

with per element basis, I meant full strings, not parts of a string... 
does find/match blk "Petr Krenzelok" not work?

well, it works in a following way - find/match blk ["Petr Krenzelok" 
"Richard Smolak"] - will return block in "Ladislav Mecir" element 
position ...

which is, maybe consistent, but practically - unusable ...

I want find-each native then, like we have remove-each ...

well, I wrote a function a while ago, which is pretty speedy for 
this purpose. I used it for real-time elimination of names in a list

it equivalents a find/all blk "petr"

well, iteration - that is not the way to go in scripting language, 
is it?

iteration can get very complex, very quickly... unless you only want 
to search strings

but maybe RebDB does exactly that, so maybe fast enough for some 
10K of records :-)

How many global-mezz are necessary. You could code this one your 
self and re-used as needed.

I don't talk about mezzs, but natives ...

ask Carl why he added remove-each as a native? ;-) you could use 
mezz too, no? ;-)

The FIND/MATCH behaviour seems correct to me, Pekr.

correct yes - usefull - no :-)

In your particular case, perhaps.

we started with remove-each, we could continue with change-each, 
find-each, no?

dunno - I would find them being consistent additions and they would 
be fast ...

do http://hmkdesign.dk/rebol/rch4.r
requires View 1.2

code is messy, many one-letter variables :-)

find-each: func [dataset [series!] value /local result][
    result: copy []
    parse dataset [

        any [set word string! (if find word value [append result word])]
    ]
    result
]

>> find-each ["Jaime" "Carl" "Cyphre"] "a"
== ["Jaime" "Carl"]
>> find-each ["Jaime" "Carl" "Cyphre"] "y"
== ["Cyphre"]

Small modification it takes care of non-string values in the block.

Ha! That is so cool. Never thought function which serves different 
purpose can be used in such case ;-)

find-each: func [dataset [series!] value /local result][
    result: copy [] 
    parse dataset [

        some [set word string! (if find word value [append result word]) 
        | skip]
    ] 
    result
]


>> find-each ["Jaime" 1 "Carl" 2 "Cyphre" 3 http://google.com"Ladislav"] 
"a"   
== ["Jaime" "Carl" "Ladislav"]

I wonder if that one will be faster than loop?

that should be easy to test, will do so tomorrow ...

I remember someone used 'parse in the past as a trick to get pointer 
to binary data in rebol ...

it was somethin with images IIRC ...