World: r3wp

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.

chris: some scripts might need 2 but still be compatible with r3... 
right now there is no way to know what (still) works in R3

No many tagged yet :)
  http://www.rebol.org/st-topic-index.r?i=r3

exactly... but just adding that button in the menu (even if there 
are only on or two script which are tagged atm) will help raise awareness 
about the need to tag stuff and to add new r3 content to rebol.org.


that's just my two cents... right now... rebol.org fives the impression 
it doesn't support r3 at all.  maybe a little post on rebol weekly 
to promote the use of r3 tags and a quiet request to carl to blog 
about it on the r3 blog, where MANY people go for r3 news.

its time to show the world that R3 is starting to be usefull, stable 
and now finally actually better than r2 in few ways.  


Its gotten past the fun "prototype" stage and is now at the usefull 
"it works" stage, even if still alpha/beta

But not in a way that looks weird when R2 and R3 roles are flipped.

what do you mean?

It'd make some sense to add an [R2] tag to all existing scripts (we 
can do that automatically) and/or [R3//untested] tag.

But let's get some [R3] scripts first,  so we have  a_need_ to make 
the distinction.


A couple of my scripts should be tagged as [R3] -- I just never got 
a round tuit:
   http://www.rebol.org/art-display-article.r?article=j26z

It'd be more elegant to find the best way to add it to metadata, 
like just adding 'r3 to the tested under dialect in the library header.

Or 'find the most elegant way to' : )

some of the library headers create tags IIRC.  :-)

maybe a simple part of header processing could be that when needs 
r3 is there... it is tagged as such automatically.

Exactly.

If you add a new script, yoy can add a (say)
  library: [r3: 'tested]
tag, and that will be picked up and used in the tag index.


The problem with updating the tags in the headers of existing scripts 
is that it is long-winded: you need to physically upload a new version.

Better just to retag via the [edit tags] link.

I am enhancing the rebol Haru PDF binding again , in the meantime 
I added support for getting position of current "text cursor" (which 
was the problem back then).. I needed it to detect when to go to 
new-page with pdf. Now I also added support for images (jpg and png). 
I am using Git so code is here: http://github.com/jankom/RebHaruPDF
.. it's still heavy in progress and there is a nicer OO interface 
than the one in sample_images.r (that is using the lowest level direct 
functions from binding because I am testing if it works at all with 
it)

Basically I am writing to ask something ... I am newbie at writing 
rebol bindings. This binding if it works it works but if almost anything 
goes wrong it simply crashes. For example missing some file, not 
going into TEXT mode , not oppening closing something, page reference 
insted of pdf doc reference given to some function in binding .. 
pdf that we intend to write being locked (alredy open in acrobat)... 
ETC ... 


I intend to write this robust now, so I am asking how is this usually 
done? I can check for preconditions before talking to binding at 
runtime in rebol. Another (better) option is that binding shouldn't 
just crash for anything that goes wrong. I saw in docs something 
about error messages as return, so maybe I am doing something wrong 
in the first place , for example not implementing or setting up some 
callback for errors... Anyone more experienced than me? Rebol Haru 
could be quite capable otherwise, it supports all things that are 
really messy to do in PDF (encodings, embedding fonts, images, encryption, 
graphics, ...).

One thing is that I can check for these preconditions at runtime,

ups.. I thought this channel is Library .. about native libraries 
:/

It's an easy mistake to make :)

I don't know .. I still remember seeing just Library :)

(at first I thought that someone changed the name of the group just 
now :)) but now I think that probably I just missed channel

I just updated the group name from [Library] to [Script Library] 
to make its primary purpose clearer.

aha, then I am actually not going crazy :))))

hm.. what is the channel to ask about making native libraries? I 
remember there was one

Does the  [DLO.SO] group cover it, or is that too platform specific?

The DLL.SO group covers R2's DLL interface, the Extensions group 
covers R3's.

Is there any way to produce a single animated  .gif file from ten 
frame files?   
This  script
http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=animated-gif.r
runs animation in the gui. Can it be saved into a gif file?

There's not direct support in REBOL for saving animated GIFs AFAIK.

http://www.makeagif.com/
This site does the job . But it limits 12 frames

I love this tiny program:  http://www.whitsoftdev.com/unfreez/
  (~20k)

Good...

frames must already be saved in GIF format (UnFREEz does no converting), 
and that they should be the same dimensions
If there  is a function in REBOL. It could be more convenient.

make-animated-gif:  func[images[block!] /size image-size [pair!] 
/delay [integer!] /loop]......................

If someone wants to add this to R3, let me know.

How much bigger would it make REBOL?  If it's too large, a downloadable 
script would probably be better.

Not much... perhaps 2 KB.  The issue is... that someone would need 
to provide the C code, with BSD license to include it.

If it's that small, it should be possible to do a clean-room development.

It would be great for us to have a little "rent-a-reboler" site, 
at which anyone wanting REBOL features like this (or even scripts 
- any sort of development work), could post a job and developers 
could reply with bids.  That could give RT motivation to add features 
that only certain users are interested in initially, and I bet we'd 
see lots of features get added to REBOL3 as extensions.  I'd love 
to support REBOL by paying for little features that I need/want. 
 Animated GIFs are not a priority for me, but I can think of at least 
10 low level functions that I'd buy.

Make a list and let us know. And attach a number that we have a baseline 
to discuss about.

Will do :)

;-) It is just exactly the same, as I tried to propose Bounty system, 
yet noone was really interested

Pekr, I don't know, but maybe it's the wording? "Bounty" versus "rent-a-reboler". 
I haven't seen many examples of bounties that actually worked.

ok, i tried to take a bit different aproach. I thought, that I might 
support some efforts with 100 USD per month or two. I would choose, 
which project I would contribute to ... if there would be more such 
ppl, eventually willing to spend 50/month, our fellow rebol developers 
would not necessarily work for free. Even if it does not make one 
for a living, I think it might be at least nicely motivating ...

maybe we could just join both aproaches into one ...

A bit OT here but: IMO what's required is a cooridnated approach 
for this. If everyone is doing a bit here and there, movement is 
to slow and spend efforts won't have the highst possible impact.

... conversely if the pieces are small enough, and can be done by 
one coder in a relatively short amount of time, many small pieces 
would get completed.  You know the saying, "pennies make dollars".

Yes, but it should be visible in one place that it's happening and 
things move. The results can be put into Rebol.org

bounties have to be worth the time.  if I work  at X$ an hour and 
a bounty offers 1-2 hours worth of work for something that may take 
a day... its not worth it