World: r3wp

What program are you writing data to the clipboard with?

if the clipboard were screwed .... then Altme wouldn't see it either??

I was just copying from Chrome's address bar .. and also writing 
to the clipboard using core.

AltMe is built against an older core.

ok, let me raise up an old core

What OS and what REBOL version?

Ahh...... !!

fails on 
>> rebol/version
== 2.7.7.3.1

works on 
>> rebol/version
== 2.7.6.3.1

Windows 7 prof

Interesting, and very good to know.

I wonder what happened to the clipboard handling...

Only RT can say, unless a changelog is posted somewhere.

Could be as simple as a change that tried to handle errors better 
and now fails for some reason.

started up view 2.7.6, pasted to clipboard and can't read in 2.7.7 
again.

I'd better log this to rambo

Yeah, thanks for testing that.

And thanks to Ladislav for PIF/CASE.

RAMBO Ticket #-4779

Hmm, rambo only goes to 4402 for me here. Most recent doesn't show 
your ticket.

no, it's negative meaning it has not been reviewed yet

Hasn't passed Gabriele's spam filter

Ah, I missed the negative sign, and forgot that Rambo did that.

Yes, I wrote PIF, and inspired Carl to write CASE, I guess. Later 
on, I renamed PIF to CASE for compatibility. (and because CASE is 
a better name than PIF)

graham, I've been using 2.7.7 for a while and have never had any 
issues with the clipboard.   I am running xp though, so its possible 
that something in windows 7 is causing this.

It's possible, that something in REBOL causes it does not work under 
Windows 7 :-)

a lot of the APIs have changed in Windows vista/7 (not sure about 
Clipboard).  

the kind of changes I would expect...  if its not using the latest 
apis, newer features in the OS could simply be preventing REBOL from 
accessing this device.

just like how these new OS prevent you from writing within the program 
files folders.


some things which had defaults, maybe now require explicit flags... 
etc...

Hi, did somebody also notice the speed difference between Vista and 
7 as below?

Benchmark run 27-Aug-2009/16:16:06+2:00. Rebol 2.7.6.3.1
Computer: 100Mega Athlon II X2 250/4G DDR3
OS: Windows Vista 64
Precision: 0.05
Empty block: 104000000.0Hz

Eratosthenes Sieve Prime (size: 8191): 54.0Hz, result: 1899 primes
Four-Banger test (+,-,*,/): 150000.0Hz, result: 10.0

Integral (icount: 10000) of sin(x) 0<=x<=pi/2: 42.7Hz, result: 1.00000000000003

Integral (icount: 10000) of exp(x) 0<=x<=1: 60.2Hz, result: 1.71828182845896
Merge Sort (500 elements): 68.4Hz

Benchmark run 4-Oct-2010/17:00:19+2:00. Rebol 2.7.7.3.1
Computer: 100Mega Athlon II X2 250/4G DDR 3
OS: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Precision: 0.05
Empty block: 131000000.0Hz

Eratosthenes Sieve Prime (size: 8191): 69.0Hz, result: 1899 primes
Four-Banger test (+,-,*,/): 188000.0Hz, result: 10.0

Integral (icount: 10000) of sin(x) 0<=x<=pi/2: 49.7Hz, result: 1.00000000000003

Integral (icount: 10000) of exp(x) 0<=x<=1: 74.8Hz, result: 1.71828182845896
Merge Sort (500 elements): 90.4Hz

(I checked, that the speed difference between 2.7.6 and 2.7.7 is 
not that big)

Benchmark run 4-Oct-2010/17:05:53+2:00. Rebol 2.7.6.3.1
Computer: 100Mega Athlon II 250/4G DDR 3
OS: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Precision: 0.05
Empty block: 129000000.0Hz

Eratosthenes Sieve Prime (size: 8191): 71.4Hz, result: 1899 primes
Four-Banger test (+,-,*,/): 188000.0Hz, result: 10.0

Integral (icount: 10000) of sin(x) 0<=x<=pi/2: 51.3Hz, result: 1.00000000000003

Integral (icount: 10000) of exp(x) 0<=x<=1: 75.5Hz, result: 1.71828182845896
Merge Sort (500 elements): 92.5Hz

wow that's a pretty big differerence!

(vista / w7)

almost exactly 20% on the same system.

So, I am curious, whether somebody would confirm my finding.

all I can say is that I felt the same effect when moving from vista 
to XP.  possibly even more.

I am wondering what is the simplest method to implement the Touch 
function in REBOL? Is there anything simpler than to append one character 
to the file and remove it again?

The UNIX touch create the file, if it doesn't exists. (If you will 
make sure, that happens.)

Maybe look at a source of "touch" to see, what it does?

and how it does it.

seems, that it does it differently, but, actually, that method is 
not suitable for my purposes, I need an "across network" touch, which 
should be consistent with "storage clock"

why not just alter the time of the file .. .and if it doesn't exist, 
then create the file?

I think I did that for my directory syncing tool

That is actually not what I want - suppose that you manipulate a 
file on a different machine, not using synchronized clock

BTW, did you use the SET-MODES function?

Yes.

I would have thought that logically the file on the other pc is for 
the time owned by the original pc

Does the SET-MODES function work for you in R2.7.7?

Haven't tried ... not for many years

There's no way PC1 can know what time it is on PC2

There is: Touch a file and get its time