World: r3wp

Got it -- what I'd uploaded (using our time-tested uploader) somehow 
had the wrong sort of line endings, and Apache got very unhappy.

My immediate attempted repair (hand upload via FTP) also had the 
same issue.
I have no idea why the line endings are suddenly acceptable.


The ISP saved the day by restoring the cgi-bin from the previous 
night's backup.

Sunanda, what usually creates problems is the shebang line ending. 
If it's CRLF, the CR becomes part of the command line.

Thanks Gabriele. That's probably what happened.

The real mystery though is why our upload process gets it wrong with 
the new server.

Maxim -- 404s should be fixed now. Sorry again for the problem.

Gabriele -- the ISP explains it as some stray redirect for the duplicate 
folders we had during the migration. I am not sure I follow their 
explanation, but they say they've fixed it.

Is there a way to provide page numbers into the altme messages?  
It's only got newer and older to allow pagination.

Perhaps index by month??

Also, can we have a smarter parser for obfuscating email addresses: 

bugs	mysql://[root-:-localhost]/bugs1

Thanks Graham.

Paging for AltME archive.....We only put the basics in place. It 
is certainly improvable.

Meanwhile, you can make great leaps if you are happy to edit the 
end of the URL ....

... eg 16273 is the post number for group 453 of world R3WP. Change 
the 16273 to move quickly:
http://www.rebol.org/aga-display-posts.r?post=r3wp453x16273

The email obsfucation is based on Andrew's  code. Improvements are 
welcome!
http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=uri.r


Meanwhile, we do not obsfucate if you are logged on. So log on for 
a better browsing experience.

Looking at that script, I suspect you can change the definition for 
user so that it excludes //

or not ..

well, I guess the obfuscation is fair enough since it's a user/password 
combination

Hi all. I've got an issue in REBOL2. I have a Win32 DLL (using library/load) 
that has an argument of char**. What does my make routine! need to 
look like to be able to handle this?

Hmm, I just realized library group was for the script library, not 
for library/load and DLL related questions. Oops.

No problem.....The flaw is really in AltME: we should be able to 
move posts around to the right group.

What's the appropriate group to ask my question do you think

Core?

BrianH suggests DLL.SO

Okay, I'll give it a shot there, thanks.

Is it possible to search the library for something like: "func [:"
I only need results, where the string "func [:" is included.

Sorry, no there is not -- not online anyway.

You could download all the scripts and do a search locally with a 
few lines of REBOL code 
http://localhost/cgi-bin/download-librarian.r
(the scripts will all be in the /scripts/ folder)

Thanks!

It doesn't seem, functions with get-word refinements are used very 
much.

Not refinements, get-word arguments.

They are very rare.

is the site built using only nested table elements?

Good news -- no absolutely positiioned DIVs, so it is a fairly fluid 
layout, will flow easily into most window size.


Bad news -- main frame of site is a table. Originally, it was nested 
DIVs but that caused some layout problems when displaying <pre> sections 
of code. Going to a table was a quick fix that has never been looked 
at again.

divs really cause sooooo much browser display issues.... tables usually 
are easier to manage.

ok , I'll give it a try for fun...  :-)

Max, given up already on the json library?? :)

I'm almost done doing my lean rebol to JSON converter...  and its 
been tested using an html and javascript  test, so its output is 
valid.

In that case, fnished so soon??

sunanda, you might want to add an "extension" section to rebol.org 
where we may contribute C/C++ code to rebol.org... what do you think?


for tutorials and small projects it might be very usefull as a tool 
to help out other people into understanding how to use the extension 
API.

It's possible....But may take a while.

For now, you could publish extension code on REBOL.org as an article 
(or series of articles).

Guys, is there any strategy of how to distinguish R2 vs R3 script 
base? I know that there are header/library fields available, but 
apart from that, I expect almost zero compatibility between R2 and 
R3 script base, and users might be confused, why scripts don't work 
for them? Would R2 vs R3 script-base split be a good idea?

The strategy is:

-- allow scripts to be tagged as (say) r3-ready,. r3-only, r2-only
-- allow searches to be limited to specific tags
-- perhaps highligh in searh results the R2/R3 status.
The first two steps are already in place.

Something new in the Library....If you own scripts, you can add images 
to them to make it all a bit more graphic.

Only example to date here:
    http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=ascii-chart.r

Notes about how to add images to yoour scripts here:
    http://www.rebol.org/boiler.r?display=script-images

Thanks to Maxim for the original change request.

very nice touch

looks good - it might be useful to impose the actual dimensions of 
the three sizes for consistency. I suppose the submitted images could 
be scaled after uploading, but it might help the uploader to know 
the sizes so that he could take them into account and maybe crop 
the images, if needed.

rebol.org should have a new tag added:

 R3


since R3 just about every R3 scripts are incompatible with R2 it 
would be nice to have reference to what R3 scripts are available 
on rebol.org.


I ask this cause I want to upload an R3 BNF -> Parse grammer converter 
and I see no way to make it explicit in the gui that its an R3 script.

Agreed.

Anyone can add any tag to scripts....Click the [edit tags] link when 
logged on and looking at a script.
   http://www.rebol.org/boiler.r?display=st-edit-tags-help

ok, so my guess is to add r3 as a library *interface* supported tag 
in the left columns.

there is a tagged called r3-ready, but that doesn't rule out its 
a r3 only script.

so possibly the best would be to make it a standard like:

r3//only
r3//compatible
r3//incompatible

Sounds good -- go for it!!

Is it not sufficient to set a minimum 'needs header?

Once we have a few with an R3 tag, it'll make sense to add R3 as 
a menu entry.

Seems version-specific tags become obsolete over time..

Chris -- that will ensure people have to use thr right .EXE to run 
it.....But not help them select which of the 900+ scripts are R3 
ready already.