World: r3wp

instead it returns none.

>> ? All
USAGE:
    ALL block

DESCRIPTION:

     Shortcut AND. Evaluates and returns at the first FALSE or NONE.
     ALL is a native value.

if there is nothing before false... what's there to evaluate?

returns at the first FALSE

>> all [ true false ]
== none

>> true and false
== false

yes, if it's equivalent of AND, that makes sense

>> all [1 2 3 4 5 false]
== none
>> all [1 2 3 4 5]
== 5

but:

>> 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5
== 0
>> 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and false
** Script Error: Expected one of: integer! - not: logic!
** Near: 1 and 2 and 3

well, the behaviour of 'all confuses me.

it doesn't make too much sense as a shortcut AND.... it makes more 
sense to say that it returns a value unless there is a FALSE or NONE 
in the block

if you stick to TRUE and FALSE for ALL and AND, they would be equivalent 
in behaviour. it seems that ALL allows more mixing of the datatypes

could it be that all values are converted to logic! ?

>> to-logic 1
== true
>> to-logic none
== false
>> to-logic false
== false
>> to-logic 2
== true

perhaps we need to make an amendment to the wikibook.

it seems not:

>> all [1 2 3 false]
== none

>> (to-logic 1) and (to-logic 2) and (to-logic 3) and (to-logic false)
== false

either that, or a RAMBO entry.

well it seems to behave like AND, it just returns NONE instead of 
FALSE

so, it's not a shortcut

so it's not a true shortcut of AND and would fail if you were testing 
for FALSE

this also doesn't work:

>> (all [1 2 3 false]) and (all [1 2 3 true])
** Script Error: Cannot use and~ on none! value
** Near: (all [1 2 3 false]) and (all [1 2 3 true])

because ALL returns NONE instead of FALSE, since:

>> logic? none
== false

'all is used widely ... in rebol scripts

so if there were to be a RAMBO entry, it would be because ALL doesn't 
return logic! values. the case would be the same for ANY. But there 
has to be a reason why it's made like this.

yeah, to frustrate newbies

:-) testing with EITHER:

>> either false [1][2]
== 2
>> either true [1][2]
== 1
>> either none [1][2]
== 2

so it doesn't seem to have a reason to return NONE...

a whole lot of things would break if the return value was changed 
from NONE to FALSE. it would be easier to say that ALL is not a really 
true shortcut AND

I suggest we submit a RAMBO and wait to see what Carl says ...

yep

done.

updated the wikibook as well.

Something related that has always bugged me is to-logic:

	>> to-logic 'false
	== true
	>> to-logic "false"
	== true

of what use then is to-logic?

This ?

>> to-logic 1
== true
>> to-logic 0
== false

>> any [false]
== none

>> select [a 1 b 2] 'c
== none

see the pattern? :-)

i agree the help string should probably be clearer.

How do send an email and cc a second email address 
I tried this

lv-header: make system/standard/email [
    to: [test1-:-somehost-:-com]
    cc: [test2-:-gmail-:-com]
]


send/header/subject [test1-:-somehost-:-com] "This is a test" lv-header 
"Test Subject"

but the email gets sent to the to address but not the cc address.

USAGE:

    SEND address message /only /header header-obj /attach files /subject 
    subj /show

DESCRIPTION:
     Send a message to an address (or block of addresses)
     SEND is a function value.

ARGUMENTS:

     address -- An address or block of addresses (Type: email block)

     message -- Text of message. First line is subject. (Type: any)

REFINEMENTS:
     /only -- Send only one message to multiple addresses
     /header -- Supply your own custom header
         header-obj -- The header to use (Type: object)
     /attach -- Attach file, files, or [.. [filename data]]

         files -- The files to attach to the message (Type: file block)
     /subject -- Set the subject of the message
         subj -- The subject line (Type: any)
     /show -- Show all recipients in the TO field

so, I guess


send/only/header  [    [test1-:-somehost-:-com][test2-:-gmail-:-com] ] "This 
is a test" lv-header "Test Subject"

I don't believe that 'send examines the header for cc and bcc fields.

yeah, it doesn't.  check source send

So I have to provide all the addresses as the 2nd parameter ... an 
amalgamation of the To: CC: & BCC addresses .....

no.

you have to rebuild the header for BCC so that the to: address is 
the BCC: address, and the cc: field is none.

since BCC means blind copy - ie the recipient should not get to see 
the cc fields, and the email should be addressed to them.

OK .. this seems to work .... thanks graham.

no problems.

One "poll" question. How many of you are using function with optional 
argument in your scripts and how much would you miss this feature?

Another "poll". What would you say to this:

what do you mean by function with an "optional argument? do you mean 
refinement?