World: r3wp

the use of Mold is something I would discourage to use for this purpose

the denominator is handling the return type, which is consistent 
with how you'd express the division in real life.

No string conversion, no floating point division(?); we have a winner!

I still like the "Use R3" method, but that is not always practical 
:(

How about .. use R2 1.7.8 ?

Fixing conversions is not on the roadmap for 2.7.8.

ok, 2.7.9 then

thanks for the quick answers! you guys are great


I'm building a function that computes the challenging code for  web 
socket  protocol, 

It uses unsigned 32 bit integer, so I use money instead of integer, 
to avoid overflow.

there is no advantage to use money in R2 against the decimals, they 
are pretty much the same in R2

(by the way, which is the best method to convert 32 bit integer to 
4 byte string big endian ?)

thanks ladislav, I will use decimal.

Does it have to be a string, or will binary do?

I think binary would be ok too...

this is my quick & dirty func:

int-2-char: func [n [decimal!] /local ret] [
			ret: copy "" 
			repeat k [16777216 65536 256 1] [
				append ret to char! (n / k)
				n: modulo n k
			]
			ret
		]

That function would be sped up by unrolling the loop.

one way is to use my http://www.fm.tul.cz/~ladislav/rebol/peekpoke.r

(you can find other conversions in there)

and, btw, unsigned and signed integers differ only in interpretation, 
using the same representation

thanks ladislav, but I prefer a small routine ad hoc instead of a 
generic and more complex one.
I have to be small with this code

here we go:

int-2-char: func [n [decimal!] /local ret] [
	ret: copy "" 
	append ret to char! (n / 16777216) n: modulo n 16777216
	append ret to char! (n / 65536) n: modulo n 65536
	append ret to char! (n / 256) n: modulo n 256
	append ret to char! n			
	
	ret
]

mmm there's something strange, with the first version of the function 
the protocol works, 

with the second version every 10-20 times the protocol fails to estabilish

<poker face>

they return the same values, maybe some side-effects ?

Some standard R2 optimizations, but compare results to be sure, I 
might have messed it up:

int-2-char: func [n [integer! decimal!]] [
	n: to integer! n
	head insert insert insert insert make string! 4
		to char! n / 16777216
		to char! (n // 16777216) / 65536 
		to char! (n // 65536) / 256
		to char! n // 256
]

You messed up by using decimal. Integer division has different properties 
than decimal.

Crap, I messed it up too, / returns decimal in R2.

I should use SHIFT instead of // here.

ah ok  good to know !

Switching to bitwise operations:

int-2-char: func [n [integer! decimal!]] [
	n: to integer! n
	head insert insert insert insert make string! 4
		to char! shift/logical n 24
		to char! 255 and shift/logical n 16
		to char! 255 and shift/logical n 8
		to char! 255 and n

]

Note that this is R2 code, and it depends on R2's 32bit integers 
and SHIFT behavior.

umh... but this fails if I pass a number > 2^31

Try the last version then, tell me if it works.

Perhaps removing the n: to integer! n from the math version, instead 
of the bitwise version.

your function works well, but I'm getting random protocol fails

It's strange ... every 40-50 times chrome does not connect to ws 
on the server

need to sleep. 
Thanks Brian for the help :-)

It might be that the new function is fast enough that you are running 
into timing errors in Chrome...

The bug was my fault, I was using a wrong variable name.
Thanks all for the help.

The complete (working) function to calculate the challenging code 
server side in web socket protocol is:

ws-chall: funct [header [string!]] [		
	
	cnt: funct [k] [
		n: copy "" 
		ns: 0 
		repeat x k [
			if all [x >= #"0" x <= #"9"][
				append n x
			] 
			if x = #" " [
				ns: ns + 1
			]
		]
		if ns = 0 [
			return none
		]			
		(to decimal! n) / ns
	]
	
	int-2-char: funct [n [integer! decimal!]] [
		;n: to decimal! n
		head insert insert insert insert make string! 4
			to char! n / 16777216
			to char! (n // 16777216) / 65536 
			to char! (n // 65536) / 256
			to char! n // 256
	]

	attempt [
		t: parse/all replace/all header crlf lf "^/"

  l: copy [] repeat x t [if n: find x ":" [insert tail l reduce [copy/part 
  x (index? n) - 1 next n]]] l: head l
		k1: next select l "Sec-WebSocket-Key1"
		k2: next select l "Sec-WebSocket-Key2"
		k3: next next find header "^/^/"
		aux1: cnt k1
		aux2: cnt k2
	]

	if any [none? aux1 none? aux2 none? k3] [return ""]

 to-string checksum/method rejoin [int-2-char aux1 int-2-char aux2 
 k3] 'md5		
]

the protocol is described here: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-socket-protocol/

why  join "a" find "x" "abc" gives "anone" ? Is it useful ?

JOIN concatenates based on the first argument datatype.

[Henrik was faster] so the second argument gets changed to the type 
of the first. Or, failing that, both are changed to string!
Try these to see:
   join "a" [1 2 3]
   join 26-jun-2010 "999"

this seems correct, but none isn't a special type?  I would like 
to use it as "neutral value" in operations

IMHO join "a" none should give "a" , length? none should give 0 and 
next none should give none

because every time I use "find" I have to check the return value

@Davide: I've actually thought the same thing about none, with respect 
to joining (though I think [0 = length? none] would be unwise, just 
as [true = true? 0] would be a mistake).

Yet in Rebol sometimes the "tail wags the dog"... there are often 
deeply entrenched reasons where some implementation detail of how 
X functionality is built on top of Y functionality means you get 
a certain behavior... like, if none didn't print as "none" it would 
break the reflection model or something with MOLD.  The go-to person 
on telling you the underlying facts of the matter is generally BrianH. 
 :)

Rebol programming can be very much like a trapeze without a safety 
net.  I have bent some of the rules in a dialect I made where (for 
instance) you can use constants or words as the clauses in if or 
either conditions.  So you can write things like [str: either condition 
"truestring" "falsestring"], instead of [str: either condition ["truestring"] 
["falsestring"]]