World: r3wp

'All code is just data'. That's what I like about Rebol.

system/schemes/ftp/handler/open-ftp - Is that on windows? I don't 
have anything like that here on linux.

Just found it. It's in /home/user/Rebol/source.

eh??

system is a REBOL object

it's open-check .. not open-ftp

? system/schemes/ftp/handler

will show you what resides inside the handler

Sorry, my typing error. I found open-check in /home/user/Rebol/source/prot-ftp.r 
and changed it to your code above, and it works! I have Rebol in 
my home folder, not in any of the linux (Ubuntu) system folders.

prot-ftp.r is a file in my home folder. I hope that makes sense. 
Anyway, your code works :)

I have the sdk!

With a license.

sure .. you can patch it so that you just encap it later on

Sadly, I have yet to get encap to work on linux (Ubuntu). I'll figure 
that one out later. For now my goal is to just get everything working. 
I'll not be passing out programs for others to use for another few 
months. That's when I'll need encap.

Hopefully you have a Linux SDK license?

I do, and a windows one.

You can tell I'm serious about switching to Rebol.

yes, that's always good :-)

http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/rambo.r?id=-4777&

Delete does not take a port spec

( Gabriele are you still reviewing Rambo submissions? )

I think that can be worked around by using REMOVE on the port opened 
on the directory that contains the file... worth testing maybe.

Anyway, yes. Ticket is now #4401.

Would this stop rebol working ? http://downloads.zdnet.com/abstract.aspx?docid=2111429&tag=nl.e530

i don't think so.

Henrik, what's this bug regarding 'encloak that you have mentioned 
on your blog?

encloak uses SHA1 I think

Graham, link? I can't remember that blog entry.

This is BSD C code for SHA 224 - 512 ... can someone review this 
to see if we can include in 2.7.8 ?

http://www.hmkdesign.dk/rebol/files/category-rebol-3.html

http://www.ouah.org/ogay/sha2/

I can't remember what the bug was. It may have been fixed in the 
meantime.

I looked on rambo and saw no entries for encloak

35kb of C source

I think the issue was around R3's encloak, not R2.

oh .ok

sorry if I will propose a nonsense, or if the solution already exists, 
but - when using REBOL for data extraction (using parse) and forming 
a block or CSV as a result, I often come to the need of append-only-if-the-item-does-not-exist-already, 
so using following idiom:

if not found? find target value [append target value]


What about adding /not refinement (or other name), so that I could 
append only unique values?

Also - is there any way of how to easily find out, if the block is 
unique? Should I apply 'unique, and compare the length before and 
after? Pity 'unique has /skip refinement, but does not have /compare 
one (as 'sort has), so that I can't set, when I have e.g. record 
of 5 items, I want to 1) set the record size (/skip) 2) select fields, 
upon which we want to define uniquess - could be an integer offset, 
or a block of positions [1 3] ... 'sort allows at least the offset 
via /compare

Two partial workarounds to your first issue Petr (I've used them 
both or various data sets):


1.  simply APPEND each time, then when the set is complete use UNIQUE 
to deduplicate

2.  if not alter target value [append target value]
   this ensures that VALUE is the last entry in TARGET

2 is more efficient, since UNIQUE always copies.

but as for efficiency, does the alter really differs from "if not 
found? find?"

ALTER removes a value, if it's found.

which is the reverse, but the same, as appending only in the case, 
if not found :-)

ALTER is not really useful in its current form.

I found not use ALTER as it's not native.. I usually use the solution 
UNIQUE where the block is not much large, but if efficiency is needed, 
I would just go with:

unless find blk val [append blk val]

(I found = I would)

I don't want to add new refinements for such a easy to do solutions 
as they would slow every APPEND a little bit.

it is just, at least for me, when using append at all - it is very 
often used idiom ...

some people prefer this construct

all [
	find blk val
	append blk val
]

that would be ANY instead of ALL.

oh yeah :)

two characters shorter than Oldes' solution

that's programmer's solution, but it does not read as nicely as - 
if not found? find blk val [append blk val] :-)

yes, Oldes' version reads even nicely ...