World: r3wp

Seems to work ! Thanks

I also set rts-cts: off

I am not sure if rebol serial ports do work without that. I wanted 
simply my rebol tool to find our device on whatever port (autoscan) 
and it imo hangeg the app, even if I used open/direct/no-wait

WRT RegEx's -- I did a simple wildcard matcher (emulates VB's Like 
operator), and looked at hooking up PCRE, but it had a funky interface 
to it and I didn't get it working in the limited time I spent on 
it.

Is it possible to set the modification date on a directory?  I keep 
getting errors whereas it works with files in win32.

>> set-modes %xml-parse.r [ modification-date: 1-Jan-2005 ]
>> set-modes %www/ [ modification-date: 1-Jan-2005 ]
** Access Error: Cannot open /D/rebol/rebXR/www/
** Near: set-modes %www/ [modification-date: 1-Jan-2005]
>> set-modes %www [ modification-date: 1-Jan-2005 ]
** Access Error: Cannot open /D/rebol/rebXR/www
** Near: set-modes %www [modification-date: 1-Jan-2005]
>>

I think I remember getting the same error with directories.

Shame ...

I am writing this file/directory replication tool, and I want to 
preserve the dates on the newly created directories

Well, I am stuffing around with files in C at the moment. I will 
see if it can be done with Windows api.

that would be cool.

(go to Windows group)

Graham I did something similiar which allows me to write the date 
to another target just as it appears in the original - kinda like 
a backup.  However, I need to modify it so that the target dates 
are stamped as they are originally.  Currently it changes the stamp.

Have you looked at Bo's LTC-Backup application that is on Developer?

http://vbnet.mvps.org/index.html?code/fileapi/folderdatetime.htm
for visual basic, googled "windows change directory date api"

can zip do it?

>> to-block %test
== [test]
>> to-block %test/
** Syntax Error: Invalid path -- test/
** Near: (line 1) test/

>> b: copy [] insert b %test/
== []
>> b
== [%test/]

file! is an any-string and thus sourced. probe to-block %"1 + 2"

only usable for loading from strings, or with some caution IMHO.
  probe to-block mold/only %test/

Hi, is it possible to restore the date of a file which was read via 
ftp?

How about not using ftp and try Coyote :)

>> foo: [a [does this]]
== [a [does this]]
>> bar: [b [does that]]
== [b [does that]]
>> rejoin [foo bar]
== [a [does this] [b [does that]]]

Is there an equivelant function that would give me:
== [a [does this] b [does that]]

>> A: []
== []
>> insert A bar
== []
>> insert A foo
== [b [does that]]
>> ? A
A is a block of value: [a [does this] b [does that]]

Yep, I can fudge it that way, but I was looking for a single function, 
like 'rejoin or 'reduce

Or, if you don't mind changing 'bar:
>> insert bar foo
== [b [does that]]
>> ? bar
BAR is a block of value: [a [does this] b [does that]]

There probably is, but I prefer simpler commands so I know what's 
going on  (^.-)

ah

compose [(foo) (bar)]

How about...

>> foo: [a [does this]]
== [a [does this]]
>> bar: [b [does that]]
== [b [does that]]
>> append copy foo bar
== [a [does this] b [does that]]
>> compose [(foo) (bar)]
== [a [does this] b [does that]]

ugghhh I still needa get used to 'copy

No, specifically looking for -- word [foo bar]

I have a feeling that if 'reduce doesn't do it, then nothing will...

>> one-word: func [block /local val][val: copy [] foreach word block 
[append val get word]val]
>> one-word [foo bar]
== [a [does this] b [does that]]

;~>

I should have specified built-in...

Hehe, I expected that. ;~>

Although, I don't understand why.  It is a one-line solution so I 
don't see why it should make a difference if it is built in or not...

I was thinking (name pending) --

one-word: func [blk][head while [not tail? blk][blk: change/part 
blk get blk/1 1]]

I'm not partial to creating new values when I don't have to :^)

I think I like that better.

I think that this functionality should be added to GET

There are quite a few words in REBOL that, IMHO, should have automatic 
block handling.

Hmm, and I was thinking of a refinement to 'reduce.  'Get makes more 
sense...

... Is there a quick trick to compare 2 pairs??  Seems 'lesser? or 
greater? dont work on pairs...

Tell me, is 10x0 or 0x10 greater?

from my point of view its equal ;-)

Thansk for the wakeup call ;-)

Are you thinking about this?
>> data: 10x0
== 10x0
>> data/x
== 10
>> data/y
== 0
>>

I'd just compare X and Y values separately...

perhpas yes...