World: r3wp

There are several "safe C" languages out there. Cyclone looks interesting, 
but hasn't been updated since 2006.

I'm interested to see who gets there first: The languages that try 
to graft safety and high-level features onto C (Cyclone, Vala, ...) 
or the efforts to speed up languages that already have the safety 
and high-level features.

Any chance to see your current work or how you configurate TCC for 
Rebol , Anton ?

BrianH, yes interesting question... ocaml is closing in to c if you 
want FP, Java speed-wise also but has a bigger ram usage and startup 
times I guess. but it's also hard to say "what is the high level" 
that we want. Is it Java like, is it dynamic langs, is it FP

Steeve, try this:

do-thru http://anton.wildit.net.au/rebol/os/nix/draw-tunnel/demo-draw-tunnel.r

(Actually, you need to read this file first, and follow Usage instructions 
to install TCC first. Then you can do-thru as above..)

(I didn't figure out how to bundle TCC standalone yet.. just a few 
experiments, so that's why you need to install TCC to the system.)

Hmm, Anton, i can't figure where is your source of draw-tunnel.c
Can you give a direct link, please ?

If you tried DO-THRU above, then it should be the most recent file 
in your public cache.
But anyway, here is a direct link.
http://anton.wildit.net.au/rebol/os/nix/draw-tunnel/draw-tunnel.c

Anton - what form is TCC in? Few dlls? Executable? You could probably 
create "new REBOL" using SDK - simply bundle it into new exe with 
all stuff you need (IIRC SDK allows loading internal binary stuff). 
Or pack it into one file, give it plugin suffix :-) Then normally 
read and decompress it, then load it :-)

Basically one executable, some linker files, some include files. 
The include files are where the feature creep starts.. How many standard 
C header files do I include?

1. What method would you recomend for printing invoices ?

    I promised my sister, I will make small aplication for invoices till 
    the end of this week :)

    I guess best way would be making HTML or PDF file and then leting 
    systm deal with actual printing ?

    Or making a face looking just like the needed document (like print 
    preview) and then printing that picture ?

2. Is there a way to scale face ? like zoom in and out ?

Use dockimbel's windows printer driver

Where can it be found?

You can find it here : http://softinnov.org/dl/printer.zip

This driver is best suited for direct printing, i.e., when you don't 
need to generate a document. Invoices are document that need to be 
saved and transmitted, so I would recommend generating PDF files 
in such case.

Doc, are you using DRAW to generate the output?

Yes, a subset of Draw dialect

ok

The PDF example in the archive is generated by using a free virtual 
PDF printer like Bullzip's one (http://www.bullzip.com).

Do you think it would be possible to translate a VID layout to your 
dialect? I have a method for that for direct postscript generation 
using Geomol's postscript dialect. This could be useful for a unified 
printing system, as I'm building a printing front end for my own 
apps.

Btw, it's not a Windows only driver, it works equally well on all 
OS using the CUPS printing system (like Linux, OS X, ...)

I see.

As I said, "my dialect" is a Draw subset, so if you can convert View 
faces to Draw dialect, you could print VID windows.

ok

Why converting VID to postscript? Is converting a View window to 
image for printing not enough? Do you have some special needs or 
requirements?

VID to postscript provides easy layout and simple previews of postscript 
layouts and I've found that converting to bitmaps is not always fast 
enough for what I need.

Will try it out, thanks Doc!
As you said, I'll also try to use pdf-maker.r ...

Vladimir, it's fairly easy to - instead of HTML - generate an XSL-FO 
directly from REBOL and use the open source FO-Processor FOP from 
the Apache group to generate PDFs. You don't have to delve into XSL-Transformations 
yet have the full power of exact control over the layout.

I need a little help to figure something out.

I have been using R3 for some time and I have a small mystery I can't 
figure out.

Some time ago, I created a script called REBOL.r3a which simply invoked 
the r3-curr.exe file (which is currently a copy of the r3-a49.exe 
that was just released).
This script was simply defined a path for the T variable:
t:	does [do %test.r]

my purpose was to simply type the letter T to invoke the test.r script 
as a quick way of running it while I had the test.r script open in 
an editor on a separate window.

So here is the mystery.

I had copied over the r3-a49.exe into the r3-curr.exe and ran it 
directly,

Then I accidentally typed T at the prompt, what I got surprised me:
>> t
** Access error: cannot open: %test.r reason:
** Where: read case load applier do t
** Near: read source case [
    binary? :content [content]
    string...

** Note: use WHY? for more about this error

Where did the r3-curr.exe get the "definition" of the T variable 
from?

I can't figure it out.

I know that Rebol will try to run REBOL.r and USER.r, but both of 
them do not have this definition.  Where else could this assignment 
be made from?

The only thing I can think of it that this is code in r3-a49.exe, 
which doesn't seem possible, so to rule that out, can someone else 
verify that the letter T is empty on their version of r3-a49.exe

Confirmed. It's just there in a49.

It's in there at least since r3-a33.exe, I have no access to previous 
versions.

You have it too.  I confirmed it has been there since r3-a32.exe 
and thought it was somehow somthing I screwed up

Thanks for confirming this.  I was loosing my mind!

eh i don't have it, maybe it's a virus

You don't have it?

>> source t
t: make function! [[][do %test.r]]

It's in A49 on both Mac OS x and Linux Libc.

i got this:
>> t: make function! [[][print "Noooo, don't look at me"]

I am speculating that the author intended this as a quick way of 
testing a script, just as I happened to write the exact same code 
in my script.

Steve , you are joking!!!

who me ?

Yes

damnit, i'm discovered

I asked on R3 chat and got this answer:


Re #3821: T won't make it to the final distribution - it's for the 
test phase.
It's not even documented. I expect that the function 
will go away inn the code
reorganization.

.