World: r3wp

Nut if I understand it well, you need content of variable which is 
stored in the wordStr

(nut = but)

>> w: "someWord"
== "someWord"
>> reduce [to-word w]
== [someWord]
>> find first system/words 'someWord
== [someWord]

but this is interesting:
>> length? first system/words
== 2600
>> newword
** Script Error: newword has no value
** Near: newword
>> length? first system/words
== 2601

Thanks but WordStr is a string and I need it to be a word type.

Actually, you are right.  Thanks Oldes.  I was able to write it all 
to the file then read it back in and parse it into 'words' without 
using 'to-word'.

This is a frequent stumbling block with beginners - using more words 
than necessary. Words are really good at expressing distinct concepts 
(ie. variables). If you have lots of similar data, then that really 
just calls for a series.

Anyone tried printf from the library?

>> do %printf.r
>> printf ["%d" .02 ]
** Access Error: Cannot open sprintf
** Where: routine-call
** Near: routine: make routine! spec library

note that r3 will make it easier to create non-bound words (i.e. 
symbols) for the cases when you want to use words as symbols (dialects, 
data, etc) and not variables. anyway, as anton says, i don't think 
anyone would ever really need more than 8k distinct words, so when 
you get that error it means that probably you are doing something 
wrong :) (ah, and given that contexts are extensible in r3, i expect 
the 8k word limit to go away)

Gabriele - as you mention dialects, will parse see any changes/enhancements 
in R3? Just curious :-)

maybe. we've been discussing a few things. nothing decided yet.

I wonder if beginners will take longer to realise the error of their 
ways...

anton, yes that could be an issue. maybe we could have a soft limit 
or something like that for contexts. but, i don't know if there's 
an hard limit, i'm just assuming there isn't, but i may be wrong.

They'll find the hard limit when they exhaust memory. :)

:-)

Graham, I bet printf is not finding the either the DLL or the function 
on the DLL.

Is this a standard windows dll?

Yes.

Humm. It seems that  WinXP' kernel32.dll doesn't includes the sprintf 
function. I will apreciate if anyone can point to the proper DLL.

msvcrt.dll

That is the C runtime. There are a few other (older) C runtimes on 
Windows, but that is generally the best one.

Thanks Brian.

New printf.r script with fix commited to the library.

Thanks.

Humm. I give up. Has somebody found a solution to the path capture 
problem?

#!/usr/local/bin/rebol -sq
REBOL []
print first system/options/args

What I need is to be able to capture the full path of the first arg 
passed to such script.

Not just the filename.

The reason is that the script is no of the same path of /usr/local/bin 
the script fails to find the file.

Which is passed as arg

Hopefully this is not too convoluted...

if you encap it, the CD will be the dir where the program was started 
from. when run with a shebang though... not sure if there's a way.

No SDK in OSX :-/

Hi Jaime,
I think you're looking for this

system/script/path

probe system/options

IIRC the shell-dir is somewhere there. Or try system/options/script/parent/path.

Thx, Ingo and Volker, what I was looking for is SYSTEM/OPTIONS/PATH

Dumb question: When I'm printing a string, what's the best way to 
show special characters (^/ etcetera) in their special form, rather 
than just expanding them (turning ^/ into an actual newline, for 
example)?

well, I know probe is the way to do it direct to stdout, but I want 
to save the "probe" value to a string

and for the public record, at least part of my answer is:

raw-str: mold real-str

yay for "source probe"

How about going the other way? Turning newlines into ^/ characters 
and so on?

and again I answer my own bloody question:

replace/all (mold real-text) "^/" "^^/")


Guess I don't actually start thinking for myself until I ask the 
question somewhere that I can look dumb ;)

But that's the best way - you're more likely to remember it then!

Is there a way to "copy" an object  (already defined)  so the result 
is a distinct object? It's probably something easy but for the life 
of me...

make

Thanks Anton. Yep, right after I wrote that I said to myself  "Self, 
why don't you try  'd: make c [ ]'"  and it works...and it is in 
the docs on objects. Duh. Thanks.

:-)

Good to know I'm not the only one :)

You kidding? I hate it when I spend hours trying to figure out what's 
up. : (