World: r3wp

I gave it above. Simplified code.

Yeah but that is a trade off to useability in my opinion.  For example 
I can say pick [this that] potential? arg

true, if you need to do that.

but what if you don't? :-)

I think we will have to do that more than the situation where we 
would desire it to return none is why I mention it.

ok, then ignore my suggestion :-)

I didn't ignore it - I just want to make sure if we propose it then 
it meets the highest amount of usability.  I'm interested in all 
ideas.

Sorry, just going nuts ...

able-to-have-a-valus?

or in short:

valuable?

valus? = value? of course ...

I like valuable?

Ingo, do I have your ok to submit your form of the valuable? function 
via Rambo?

Anyone know why the case function has a /all refinement?  Seems the 
/all is what case does by default.

Sure you have my OK.

I see a difference ...


>> case/all [1 probe 1 2 probe 2 3 probe 3 false probe false 5 probe 
5]  
1
2
3
5
== true

>> case [1 probe 1 2 probe 2 3 probe 3 false probe false 5 probe 
5]      
1
== 1

Bye, I'll leave for now.

Yeah I am confused by the wording as it says for the /all:

Evaluate all cases

and for the function itself:

Evaluates each condition

That sounds the same.

case will normally stop after the first true condition.  case/all 
will evaluate all of the true conditions.

The key bit from the HELP is REFINEMENTS:
     /all -- Evaluate all cases (do not stop at first true case)

Yeah I understand how it works but the help documentation seems confusing.

would be nice to also break out of one of evaluated cases.

There is always a REBOL way  :)  And after I post this, someone else 
will come by with the real answer.
 

>> print catch [case/all [true [print 1] true [print 2] true [throw 
"4"] true [5]]]

that will work btiffin.

That seems rather clean also.

How about the following wording for case? 


Evaluates conditions until the first is true, then evaluates what 
follows it.

Makes it sound a bit like the first condition must be true.

Evaluates each condition until true, then evaulates what follows 
it.

Then again that one makes it sound like all conditions must be true.

Evaulates conditions until a condition is true, then evaluates what 
follows it.

That sounds less confusing.

Evaluates conditions until a condition is true, then evaluates the 
associated value.

("what follows it" could be all the rest ...)

So let me play newbie for a moment.  If I see your phrase I might 
think that case is going to evaluate each condition until that condition 
is true and then evaluate what follows it.  Similiar to an until 
function.

Evaluates the conditions, until the first true condition is found. 
Then evaluates the associated value.

Anyone have information on the STATS command.  I'm trying to find 
some comprehensive information on it.  I remember at one time there 
was a discussion regarding using stats to measure performance of 
functions, etc..

Not just memory usage.

stats/evals is handy.   Use it with  stats/evals/clear   And then 
look at rebol.org's  mem-stats.r  by Carl.  It's not "comprehensive 
info" but it's info.   :)

I think "next value" is more precise than "associated value".

thanks Btiffin.  I'll look for Carl's mem-stats.r function also.

I don't know where to put this question exactly but has anyone created 
any code to generate an Outlook appointment request?

I did some MAPI test R&D a long time back, though I think I wrapped 
it in a DLL to call from REBOL. 

Can you generate an iCal %.ICS file and do it that way?

The valuable?/potential? function would have to be updated.  It needs 
to check for value.  so it would be:


valueable?: func [arg][found? all [any-word? :arg not lit-word? :arg 
value? :arg]]

I am trying to pull some information out of a moderately formatted 
wiki and am tripping over something simple.


I have grabbed what equates to a record in a table so far that looks 
as follows.

||Key 123||Description text||Status||02/23/08||Y||

I have parse giving me this as a block of values.


Since this wiki is only loosely formatted the first field varies 
one line to the next, sometimes might just be Key, or *Key ###.  
What I am working too hard at is how to test a line is a pure Key 
### value.  I went looking using find for "Key "(with the space) 
 values but that still picks up "*Key ###" values.  I have multiple 
key types but generally it follows the pattern of trying to avoid 
the leading * lines and any line that isn't a known Key with some 
number following it.


My old procedural habits would like a simple substring so I can test 
from the beginning for x number of characters.


I have tried copy/part but am not getting the range syntax correct.


I am also thinking I should just further split the field to the key+number 
so I can test that both parts exist and have appropriate values. 

Suggestions or nudges towards enlightenment?

Umm, I'll get this wrong; but parse is the ticket.

nums: make bitset! [#"0" - #"9"]
valid: parse value [ "Key" 3 nums]

I think.

space: make bitset! " "
valid: parse/all value ["Key" space 3 nums space to end]

Maybe?

I'd include a characterset that excludes the * character

sorry bitset... 
nums: make bitset! [#"0" - #"9"]
skip-char: complement make bitset! [#"*"]
valid: parse value [skip-char "Key" " " 3 nums]

... something to that affect anyway.

How about:

nums: charset [#"0" - #"9"]
space: charset [#" "] 

parse wiki ["||" any space "key" any space 3 nums any space "||" 
] 
and so on ...]

Brian, the first one seems to work for my test data, will give it 
a try on the real thing on Monday.  Thanks all for the tips, will 
keep them handy as I refine this little script.

Anyone got a clean-script that works with the new rebol syntax ?