World: r3wp

C to Rebol is very simmilar...have to leave now...bye for now

bye and thank you cyphre for your contribution to thi discution.

it was a very good source of information

and kwoledge

knowledge sorry :)

well now i know better how to handle REBOL -> C and C-> REBOL the 
idéal thing could be a convert-reb-to-c multi type, multi size native! 
function in Command and in REbol/view Pro (I think it will be added 
to core any way than accessible if you have the licence.key file)

maybe idela convertion function could be c_convert/int ma_var  with 
ma_var : [ 1 4 5 10 ] if c_convert  workon a REBOL array then no 
need to specify manually the length we retrieve the info using lenght? 
type could be treat as rafinement and a switch could branch into 
c_convert function the adapted tranlation algorithm

improving this c_convert for int64 for example could be a very easy 
task ;)

to avoid to rewrite X time the same lind of code we just in the switch 
premaid a countainer adapter to the data we want to handle.

Has anything changed with core regarding loading?  I'm trying to 
load a function using a URL, and it comes back as a block?

Has load become load/all ?

For anything other than a simple value, you've always got a block 
back from load (as far as I remember)
>> load "1"
== 1               --- a value
>> load "1 2"
== [1 2]               --- a block
>> load mold :to-idate
== [func .....         -- a block


>>

ic.. here's another .. how can i determine if a 'word has been set 
yet, in the code?

>> value? 'xx
== false
>> xx: 1
== 1
>> value? xx
== true

what if i dont want to spin the value?  is there no way to check 
other than trying it?

or wait.. nvm :)

Value? 'xx shouldn't "do" anything with the word being tested-- so 
it should be safe at all times
Or am I missing your point?
>> xx: func [] [print "hello"]
>> value 'xx
>> value? 'xx
== true      -- does not print "hello"

no, I read your post too quickly

I often wonder, why 'while' takes a condition-block, when 'if' doesn't. 
Is there an explanation for that?

of course. The IF condition is evaluated once, while WHILE condition 
may be evaluated many times.

Geomol, if you try to write your implementation of WHILE, you'll 
immediately see the reason. :)

Thanks! :-)

Given that we have a 'read-net func, would a 'write-net equivalent 
make sense? (could then have a [view] 'request-upload func to match 
'request-download)

Did I just found an error with replace? Try these:
>> replace/all "abc{def" "{" "^^{"
== "abc^^{def"
>> replace/all "abc{def" "{" "^{"
== "abc{def"

So I can't get a result with just one ^?

^^^{ ? a "^{" is the same as a "{". To allow {this ^{ is a paren} 
 .

>> replace/all "abc{def" "{" "^^^{"
== "abc^^{def"

Yes thats right. Its molded. "^" is escaped, the escape-char is "^"..

print replace/all "abc{def" "{" "^^^{"

yes, seems right

The result is 8 bytes.

But
s: {this ^{ is a paren}
gives an error: ** Syntax Error: Invalid string

>> s: "this ^{ is a paren"
works ok.

works on 1.2.48.4.2 . what are you using?

1.2.57.3.1

I'm trying to build a string with rebol content inside (also strings). 
And I get into trouble. I think, it's a bug. Try this:
>> s: "^"abc^/def^}ghi^""
== {"abc
def^}ghi"}
>> to-block s
** Syntax Error: Invalid string -- "abc
** Near: (line 1) "abc

This works:
>> s: "^"abc^""
== {"abc"}
>> to-block s
== ["abc"]

so my example above should work too, right?

Looks like to-block isn't noticing the carat:
>> to-block "^{}"
== [""]
>> to-block "^{"
** Syntax Error: Invalid string -- {
** Near: (line 1) {

I don't think, you can have a block with only a '{' inside. REBOL 
will think of it as the start of a string. If you put '{' in between 
"", you don't have to use caret, but you can:
>> to-block "^{^}"
== [""]
>> to-block "{}"
== [""]

I think, my problem start, when I have a newline before a '{':
>> to-block "^"^/{^""
** Syntax Error: Invalid string -- "
** Near: (line 1) "

Because this works:
>> to-block "^"{^""
== ["{"]

I figure, the problem is with strings, not with to-block or any other 
command.

Probably because the caret can be used even in strings and used for 
line termination formatting etc..

I would be ok with reporting this to RAMBO, but would like to be 
sure, it's a bug first. (I don't like too much in RAMBO, if it's 
not a bug anyway.)

Can you give an example of your input and final desired output ?

Input:

Input: "^"^/{^""

That's a string with 4 bytes: A ", then a newline, a { and another 
".
Operation: to-block
Desired output: ["^/{"]

That's a block with a string, that consists of 2 bytes: a newline 
and a {.

If this can be solved, then I can solve my other problems, I think. 
(Same goes with } btw.)

Maybe it's easier to see, if I use binary:
>> b: #{220A7B22}	; That's my input string as binary.
Try these:
>> to-string b
>> to-block b
The last one will fail, but it should give me:
== ["^/{"]

>> s: input
^/{
== {"^^/^{"}
>> to-block s
== ["^/{"]
>> print s
^/{
>> print to-block s

{
>>

Is that what you want?

I guess as soon as you have a newline in your string you should start 
the string with { and not with "

Interesting!