World: r3wp

lexical parser should give precedence to ] followed by a space, as 
it is a closure to initiated block, no? :-)

(me not being parse expert at all :-)

I agree with Anton - for me "crash" is when something takes down 
rebol ...

Anton sorry, I'm no native speaker, I'll take more care

No problem, just keeping terminology clear.

Rebolek: please put it in RAMBO if there isn't already present.

OK. What should be the priority to have it fixed in 1.3.3? ;)

red-icons = old time problem with timestamps we can't rely upon

actually I think that bug is gonna be fixed, as solution seems to 
be obvious ...

BTW you can always use this workaround: to-lit-word "<"

other - lowering dekstop timeout - absolutly obtrusive experience 
trying to connect to internet, when you are behind the proxy. I would 
not connect by default

Hmm.... I think "medium".  It's good to also note in your bug report 
why it was a problem for you (the space was sucked out of the block).

(also note the workaround you use.)

I've no workaround right now, because I've noticed it half an hour 
ago, but Cyphre's example looks promising.

I'm not sure why I'm using first [ < ] instead of "<" because the 
second looks more logical

I have a little question regarding extern library useage...

I am supplying a string! to a function, which is supposed to be used 
as a buffer.

lets say:

buf: make string! 100

but when the function returns, my string is still size 0.  although 
I know the call has worked!

cause If I send a string filled up with 100 spaces, I actually get 
some chars overwritten and a 0 char where it should...

so my question is basically, what is the proper/expected means of 
submitting a buffer ?

if you submit string to your function, it sends just pointer

so it should work correctly, expecting zero terminator in C level?

maybe it would be better to see your wrapper

hum... I think I understand something... because the call, is not 
returning a string!, but filling up a buffer, REBOL has no means 
to know that it should fix the string! and resize it to the zero 
terminator, right?

don't  you define in your wrapper call what the function returns?

You don't pass a string as a bit of memory to be filled ...

yes it returns success, but fills up the buffer I send it... it does 
not return the buffer itself...

well many C calls expect a buffer as an argument... what's the prefered 
method then?

it would be good to see original C function spec. Because - e.g. 
when I was wrapping one function (trying to investigate red-icons 
problem IIRC), the function was clearly expecting chars (certain 
amount), but it did not work, untill Ladislav came in and changed 
it to struct for that part of function.

I just hope, that for R3, more automatic wrapping will be possible.

yeah... like .h file loading ;-)  we can always dream  ;-)

my routine spec:

		username: make routine! [
			"Get the current logon name of thread which launched REBOL"
			buffer [char*]
			count [string!]
			return: [integer!]
		] libinfo "GetUserNameA"

C spec:

BOOL GetUserName(
  LPTSTR lpBuffer,
  LPDWORD lpnSize
);

about [<] - I think I have reported the problem like 5 years ago. 
In my scripts I use to lit-word! "<".

is double word correctly specified as a string? (count). Should not 
it be an integer?

Five years ago? OK, why do I care:)))

pekr:  its actually a word pointer  and  MS example look like so:
GetUserName( infoBuf, &bufCharCount )

which is why I supplied a string, so that the get user name would 
receive a pointer instead of a number.

pointer is a number

&bufCharCount  asks to get the pointer to the word, not the value 
of the word... no?

what about trying putting struct instead of buffer [char] in there? 
:-), with first element being a string? Struct itself will be represented 
as a pointer

well, maybe better wait for someone like Ladislav or Anton or Gabriele 
or anyone else more experience than me. I always work by guess, try, 
change aproach, till it works (or it does not :-))

just one question, how many bytes is a double word (in MS) supposed 
to have 4 or 8?

16?

sorry, mixed bytes and bits :-)

bit, byte=8bit, nibble=4bit, word=32bit=4bytes, double=64bit=8bytes?

k thanks, just wanted to confirm.. I've just not been thinking in 
those terms for soo long.

my friend suggests me, that it can't be said - it depends upon platform. 
Typically it is good to use sizeo(word) to get the idea ...

sizeof