World: r3wp

great! thanks

quite a bit of code there. hopefully my suggestion for EXTRACT for 
REBOL3 will be accepted :-) that would make this a whole lot simpler

oh, works only on integers :-(

graham, I looked at printf and it seems to require a DLL interface?

I don't think that printf will insert comma separators from looking 
at the man page.

I have this:

>> form-decimal 10 0
== "10"
>> form-decimal 10 2
== "10,00"
>> form-decimal 100000 2
== "100'000,00"
>> form-decimal 100000 0
== "100'000"

very old... result is rebol loadable

not sure code is readable... but if you want to play with it anyway...

that looks good

as long as it's readable to rebol :-)

$ echo "1234567890" | perl -pe '1 while s/(.*)(\d)(\d\d\d)/$1$2,$3/'
   1,234,567,890

http://www.sunmanagers.org/pipermail/summaries/2002-December/002817.html
and there's an awk script on the same page

Try this thread, which includes a version of Gabriele's form-decimal 


http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/ml-display-thread.r?m=rmlLTLK

All the versions are quite long though.

gabriele's solution works fine here :-)

Did you notice the ; ***WARNING*** positive numbers only.

the version i sent him is the older, more generic one, which uses 
italian rules for formatting (, to separate decimals, ' to separate 
groups of 3 digits)

graham, the above regexp can be written in parse as:

digits: charset "1234567890" reverse rewrite reverse "1234567890" 
[[x: 4 digits] [(copy/part x 3) "," (pick x 4)

using my rewrite function

sorry, should be: digits: charset "1234567890" reverse rewrite reverse 
"1234567890" [[x: 4 digits] [(copy/part x 3) "," (pick x 4)]]

>> digits: charset "1234567890" reverse rewrite reverse "1234567890" 
[[x: 4 digits] [(copy/part x 3) "," (pick x 4)]]
== "1,234,567,890"

i wouldn't suggest doing it this way though ;)

to-comma: func [ n [number!]
	/local tx result
][
	tx: reverse form n
	result: copy ""
	while [ not tail? tx ][
		repend result [ part: copy/part tx 3]
		tx: skip tx 3
		if all [ not tail? tx 3 = length? part ][
			append result ","
		]
	]
	reverse result
]

no decimals ...

don't forget that if you use comma to group digits, you can't load 
it back in rebol anymore.

Rebol uses ' as a separator

to-comma: func [ n [number!]
	/local tx result parts left right
][
	one-comma: func [ tx /local result ][
		result: copy ""
		while [ not tail? tx ][
			repend result [ part: copy/part tx 3]
			tx: skip tx 3
			if all [ not tail? tx 3 = length? part ][
				append result ","
			]
		]
		result
	]
	parts: parse tx: form n "."
	left: reverse one-comma reverse parts/1	
	either found? parts/2 [
		right: one-comma parts/2
		rejoin [ left "." right ]
	][
		left
	]
]

handles decimal points as well.

>> to-comma 1
== "1"
>> to-comma 1234
== "1,234"
>> to-comma .1
== "0.1"
>> to-comma .1234
== "0.123,4"
>> to-comma 1234.1234
== "1,234.123,4"

I have trouble sending a BCC email with the new send function. Can 
anybody verify ? (I am using authenticated smtp)

h: make system/standard/email [ BCC: [copy-:-domain-:-com]]

send/header [to-:-email-:-com] msg h

Vaguely I think it should be: reduce ['bcc [copy-:-domain-:-com]]

no sorry, let me try...

don't think send supports cc

Yes, that's right, SEND is BCC by default.  Note the /show refinement: 
  /show "Show all recipients in the TO field"    That means by default 
they are not shown.

looking at send source, /show just clears the header to field, so 
it works when you send to multiple recipients and each one doesn't 
see who else received the email. When a message is sent to a single 
recipient the client shows the message is directed to you anyway. 
The trouble is this is not bcc

In this case, each message is individually addressed with only the 
recipient's email name appearing in the To field (similar to BCC 
addressing).

http://www.rebol.com/docs/core23/rebolcore-13.html- section 9.2

Sorry, the above to posts refer to the Core 2.3 docs. I have trouble 
with the "similar to bcc" If someone can provide some hints on how 
I should handle BCC then I will modify send source. To me this is 
a bug (i submitted to RAMBO) and I don't see what's the point of 
having BCC field in the standard header if this field is ignored

if you want bcc, just send the mail again addressed to the bcc recipient.

I think those fields are telling the email client how to send them. 
 It is up to you to implement them.

I can't think of any reason why an email client should ever receive 
an email with a bcc field.

Graham, I tried that but you get the same email than before with 
a different recipient but no BCC. I want to use BCC for some archiving 
project so I want to preserve the original To field like in real 
Bcc messages

Graham, I am not in the corporate world, but when I was Bcc was one 
of the hottest features, so many people used it to copy managers 
without the recipients being aware. I did like that use but it was 
widely accepted method to keep people in the loop

I did like
 --> I meant I didn't like

A semi-solution to this problem has been posted in RAMBO http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/rambo.r?id=4103&

This is a hack because the message shows the original headers so 
it's not true bcc but it partly solves my problem thanks

Joe, I had problems with BCC in a corporate mass emailing I did. 
 Even though it did not display the email address in the mail client, 
if you viewed the header of the mail message the BCC content was 
there.