World: r3wp

And the same word OBJ got a new context

Ladislav, I see your point, except it's not  a problem from my point 
of view. ;-)

Probably we shoold invent new vocables.
instead of "direct"  binding like Brian said.
I would say  "space" binding.
in the block: 
b: [ a a a a ]
Each word 'A' may have different contexts.
Beause they occupy diffenrt locations in "space"
That"s all. :-)

Funny :)

to go further.
If we admit that words may change of context during time.
Then, Rebol process "spacetime" binding

Strangely enough, they don't really change binding, they are replaced 
with new words of the same spelling and new binding. Words are immutable, 
like integers. That is what Ladislav was talking about. The functionality 
is great, but terminology that implies that words can change binding 
is not really true.

Yeah I see your point but I still can pretend.

It's not a spacetime law violation

After new binding,

Even if you say that the "cell" contains (hidden)pointers to different 
locations in memory.

The cell himself remains at the same location in the block and has 
the same "public" name.
So that I can say :

the same "cell" in the same block with the same name has a different 
context.

Yup.

But the interesting thing is that the immutability of words makes 
BIND behave differently when passed a word (which it can't modify) 
versus a block (which it can). So when you bind a block, you aren't 
modifying the words in the block, you are modifying the block itself. 
This is an important distinction that we shouldn't gloss over because 
that tends to confuse newbies later.

that tends to confuse -> *glossing over the distinction* tends to 
confuse

Yes, the main problem is, that the "From my point a view the serie 
A has not been modified." will shoot you in the foot, as demonstrated 
in the bindology article

yes finally, maybe I raved too much :-)

We all reach our limits there too :)

Therefore, the introduction of "modifies" comments is needed (and 
useful!)

Instead of spacetime modification, it's spacetime travel

hefty...

I used to use the term "applicative binding order" for REBOL's binding 
model, but later on Carl started calling it "definitional binding", 
which is a bit less descriptive but sounds better.

sounds better than spacetime travel ?

Sounds better than "applicative binding order". Time will tell if 
the increased explanation needed will be outweighed by having a cooler 
term.

I am a fan of the "definitional binding", since it is short enough 
(just two words, i.e. the same length as alternatives, like "dynamic 
binding" or "lexical scoping"), as well as different enough from 
the alternatives

It is cooler, yes :)

but what does that mean exactly ? Definitional ?

I mean, in that context :-)

I perceive it as referring to the fact, that e.g. the binding of 
the function locals is done when the function is defined.

It sounds weird in French

(but that may be just my own interpretation)

When you know what it is referring to it sounds weird in English 
too. It means that bindings are set at function, object or module 
definition time (ignoring explicit binding).

It should underline that the programmer choose the moment when the 
binding is processed

Perhaps "redefinitonal binding" would be more accurate, but it doesn't 
sound as cool.

Undefinitional binding - meaning it's not bound until you define 
it

...but that is not true, in fact

yeah there is a default binding during the loading,; I forgot...

yes, that is the problem, as well, as the problem of a function inside 
a function, etc.

The important process to make people understand is how lexical binding 
is faked by rebinding code over and over again as more nested contexts 
are defined.

infinite binding ?

It is really quite similar to what a compiler for a language with 
lexical scoping does internally, but we do it at runtime instead.

boundless binding :-)

Nested binding, it's my last proposal 
I go to bed 
Bye Folks

Me too, good night

Hi, is anyone familiar with Frank Sievertsen Telnet protocol scheme 
please?

I am trying to use it at a really basic level at first, just issueing 
the commands manually, but I think I am missing a trick or two.
this is what I am doing
port: open telnet://192.168.2.2/
t: copy port
print t


This shows me that I connected ok & got a password prompt, however 
I cant seem to work out how to send a string to the session & read 
the response. Any suggestions much appreciated. Thanks.

Hi, is anyone familiar with Frank Sievertsen Telnet protocol scheme 
please?

I am trying to use it at a really basic level at first, just issueing 
the commands manually, but I think I am missing a trick or two.
this is what I am doing
port: open telnet://192.168.2.2/
t: copy port
print t


This shows me that I connected ok & got a password prompt, however 
I cant seem to work out how to send a string to the session & read 
the response. Any suggestions much appreciated. Thanks.

oops

I haven't looked at that in a looooooong time. I hope someone else 
can chime in and help.

Can you post what you're doing now, that isn't working?

e.g. are you using INSERT on the port?

May the commands be terminated with crlf

Hi, I had to drive 100 miles to pick up my son nexpectedly.  So my 
apologies for not responding straight away. Thanks very much for 
your responses.

Gregg, I am not doing anything to send data to the session because 
I dont know how to I am afraid. 

you mention INSERT, but even after looking at the telent.r code I 
am afraid I can work out what to do.


Steeve, the target device is a CIsco router so I think it would be 
happy with crlf or just cr

I am afraid I will have to be off to bed now, but hopefully a few 
small pointers will get me thinking in the right direction.
Thanks

I was confused by the insert function in the telnet scheme vs the 
use of INSERT in rebol but I have discovered that
insert port "username" 

does what I was trying to do, looks like I need to sort out the crlf 
issues but I think I am getting somewhere with it now.   

I am also unable to identify the method to disconnect, the telnet 
RFC mentions an "Interrupt Process" code 244, bit I dont see that 
implimented in the code..   Thanks.

Sounds like you're getting started Mike. Read the Core docs on ports, 
though I don't know how the telnet scheme maps certain things. Basically 
know that you can use READ and WRITE as high level ops on HTTP ports, 
but you may need to use lower level calls like INSERT and COPY to 
write and read data, and UPDATE may be needed as well in some cases.