World: r3wp

Let's look at bit closer at the REBOL header block and licenses. 
In the library (http://www.rebol.org), REBOL scripts have a library 
entry in the header, and it contains a field named "license" with 
about 10 different possibilities. Is it enough to specify the license 
like that, or do we have to put a license text and/or warranty in 
the header of our scripts? Not just in the library but in general. 
Does anyone know, or should we ask an attorney?

I'd like to see this as a system/standard/script field.  For rebol.org 
there could be helper forms with some common choices but I'd also 
like to see it support url! in the submission validator (although 
that may have longevity problems).


Would system/standard/script/Rights, /License and /Disclaimer (or 
Warranty) cover all the legalese?

There is big problem with rebol.org library if you are using different 
than ascii chars. I've just submited a script which contains latin2 
chars and it's not uploaded correctly as there were converted to 
utf8 (so the script will not be working correctly as the chars are 
used in parse.

I will try to upload the script directly (not from webform to see 
it it's deformed as well)

no.. it's not working:(

the script is correct for download http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/view-script.r?script=code-colorizer.r
but not for display.

I've added encoding: 'cp1252 into header... it's up to rebol.org 
now to use such an info and convert such a script into utf8 before 
displaying it in html

Thanks Oldes.

Part of the problem is that all pages served from REBOL.org are served 
as
   charset=utf-8
even if a specific needs a different charset.
We need to make that more flexible :-)

How many people use the Desktop Librarian?   If not, why?  If so, 
how?


And if the answer to the first question is more than 1, who would 
be up for a documented experiment in REBOL/Agile team development? 
 It would be starting from a 60%ish completed RebGUI app with big 
big plans (and a potential complete rewrite to fit with a could-be-soon 
Revault).  There are definite and defineable 'pieces' involved.


R2 mind.  See; I dropped the ball a few months back and need a reason 
slash motivation to restart as rebol.org is too valuable a resource 
to not.  :)

If what I know about Agile is anywhere near close, we'd also need 
a "customer" or two.  To be open, honest and critical.   But those 
individuals, while having an idea of what they want to see, can't 
really be exisiting Library Team members ... I don't think.  Any 
Library Team members not involved in dev, would be the "management"

I don't use Desktop Librarian. I'm not absolutely sure why. Maybe 
because I don't use the desktop much. And why not that? Again, not 
absolutely sure. Because it feels a little weird!? Because it needs 
a Directory Opus (from Amiga) kind of tool!?

Plus ... if you can't tell; I've read Agile, never done Agile, but 
I think it fits as a counter balance to REBOL Cowboy.  Plus ... don't 
take me using the moniker Cowboy to mean a bad thing.  It has been 
the method of many a good piece of REBOL software, just perhaps not 
what  some IT managers want to see.

John;  Gabriele posted ropus.r to the library!  :)   I think it only 
needs a change to an OPEN/WAIT to be 2.7

Cool! I'll see, if I can find it...

Do you know, with what version it works?

Hm, from dec. 1999, so not supported for a long time.

I had it running on 2.7.6 Win98.  But it required a change of an 
OPEN/WAIT to OPEN/NO-WAIT.  It's from 2001 so ...

Other than Help flashing to quickly it seemed to operate ... perusal 
mode that is.

lol, ropus.r was for Core 2.0... heh. it says a lot that it still 
works though. (not that it does anything weird.)

I haven't used it for a long time, because it's out of date WRT content.

Looks like it was just updated thought. :-)

So it's a psychological and feature problem.

Feature problem with my old install that is. The new Refresh option 
is what was needed. Excellent.

Can anyone help with this problem with Sterling's Calendar application?

I thought it might be version related, but one of the VID versions 
I have exhibit the problem:
** Script Error: Cannot use multiply on none! value
** Where: edit-text
** Near: 2 * face/edge/size

http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/discussion.r?script=calendar.r

Looks like this line is the problem:

        dp-area: area (dp-info/size - 4x0) ivory ivory edge [size: none] 
        with [show?: false ff: day: time: none]

Change to:

        dp-area: area (dp-info/size - 4x0) ivory ivory edge [size: 0x0] with 
        [show?: false ff: day: time: none]

Posted as a reply on REBOL.org as well.

Thanks Gregg....That seems to have done the trick:

http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/discussion.r?script=calendar.r

I would like a way to search the script library for words in scripts, 
that would not return scripts that have those words in strings. I 
would use this function several times a week when researching function 
usage for my mezzanines work.

Just a search that filters out string!, file! and url! types would 
be fine. I am only interested in searching the various word and path 
types.

Read above as: Just a search that filters out any-string! types would 
be fine. I am only interested in searching any-word! and *path! types.

Hmm... How to do that?
We need to know where a particular
Maybe:
1. Read script *and* Load script
2. Visit each item in the loaded block, recursively.
3. As each item is visited, check its type.

4. Depending somewhat on type, parse (in the READed script) to the 
molded item:
4.1  If it's a series, search for the "opener", eg. block! -> "["
4.2  If it's a non-series, search for it molded.
4.3

(oops.. incomplete post, sorry)

We need to know where a particular .. value is in the original source 
string (read from file).

4.3 (Cater for variations in molding, eg. strings in the source written 
as "..." can be molded {...} and vice versa, depending on length.)

Interesting idea. Brian. We could certainly weight the results so 
those with words in the body rather than strings etc are listed higher....In 
fact, we already do that as one of the ranking factors.
Let me think about it....

When I am making changes to the mezzanines, I use the script library 
for research on existing usage of these mezzanines to see whether 
anything would break. When the name of a function is a common word 
that would show up in comments or strings, this is much more difficult. 
I would also like to look for third-party functions that I can't 
remember where they are defined or their author.

Would it be useful to index the files? That way you could extract 
keywords on posting rather than at search time.

We do index the files, and we have several indexes, some built by 
parsing parts of the script. So we can, usually, search for special 
parts of scripts -- like strings or comments.

Part of the difficulty is that there are some scripts that we cannot 
do a 'load or a 'load/header on - they are broken or have an incompatible 
'needs: header. So we cannot add those scripts to the sepcialised 
indexes. They need specialised handling :-)

Watch this space -- I'm fiddling with some code that may partially 
need your need.

Can't load ? Just skip it with with a warning message :) You still 
get your 99% solution.

Oh, sorry, I don't know how many are not loadable in rebol.org. I 
just loaded my entire source base after fixing one that was unloadable.

but I am obviously not taking public submissions like rebol.org.

If we can't load, we try a few tricks (like commenting out the needs: 
header and reloading).

But still, there are one ot two that we fail with. So they don't 
get as well indexed as the others...And (for the same reasons) they 
are the ones that appear in black and white even if you click the 
"view in color" link.

How easy is it to edit your scripts after they have been submitted? 
Do you feel comfortable adding the appropriate needs header where 
needed, provided you know enough about REBOL versions to determine? 
Can you flag the appropriate files as problematic?

For that matter, do you index line comments separately, as LOAD filters 
them out?

It's pretty easy to update a script after you've contributed it.....Use 
the [update] link to add a new version.

Yes, we also index comment lines separately. Basically, we use the 
same logic as Carl's color-code.r to analyze the parts of a script:

  http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/view-script.r?script=color-code.r

Brianh: <I am only interested in searching the various word and path 
types.>

Try this quick concept code. In REBOL.org's search box, use [b] as 
a sort-of inline refinement to limit script searches to just the 
body of a script, eg
     sing

  -- finds nearly 300 scripts which contain the string "sing"    but
    sing [b]

-- finds just three scripts that have the word-part "sing" in their 
body

.

Even better script searching at REBOL.org -- we've extended the "[b]" 
notation to include other parts of a script and any tags the script 
has. The search can now be highly tuned to what you are looking for:
http://www.rebol.org/boiler.r?display=introduction.html