World: r3wp

:-) now I was first :-)

I have it in my user.r, so I almost forgot about it ...

you were first, because it took 3 minutes to swap into textmate. 
:-) have too many things running here.

Thank guys.

The Rebol School site is now working again after 4 years of malfunctions.

Andreas helped me today to debug the vanilla issue that was causing 
a server error for most pages ...

http://www.compkarori.com/vanilla/

Basically the data about the user Graham was set to a zero byte file 
when my site was hacked .. and vanilla looks at the user file when 
it displays a snip authored  by that user.  It was unable to load 
this data causing an error, and since I authored many of the snips, 
it caused most of the site to go down.

Question:  I'd like to define a function that essentially prints 
out a stored message like this:

debug?: on

debug: func [a] [print a]

but I want it to print only when debug? is on.  Since debug? is outside 
of the function, how can I define it so that it checks this value 
before printing a

debug: funct [a] [if debug? print a]

Kidding ?

debug: funct [a] [if debug? [print a]]

Hi Steeve, it doesnt work.  If debug? is on or off, it still prints 
a

hmm...

oops I made a mistake

Sorry steve,  You were right, I did a typo on my test.  Thank you

And you don't need funct here because there are no locals (though 
it's a cool function) :)

So the main difference between FUNC and FUNCT is that variables outside 
of the function can be referenced ... right?

not exactly

funct "Defines a function with all set-words as locals"

so you don't have to write func [/local blahblah]...

to clarify, locals is all variables that is local to the main script, 
 outside of the function.  Is that a good way to describe it?

no :)

actually it's the revese, those ones are called 'global

All variables that are local to the function itself.

I see -- got my terminology mixed up

Look at the source of FUNCT, it's a good lesson on function creation 
tricks. And compare the R2 and R3 versions.

will do -- thank you very much

The source in DevBase has some comments that help explain things 
a bit, so you might start there.

I'm an old mainframe cobol kind of guy, and I trying to setup something 
that resembles the perform statement:
debug?: on
perform: funct [paragraph] [

 if debug? [print form ["para " paragraph]]      ;<-- when debug? 
 is on, the paragraph name will be printed before it is "performed"
	do paragraph
	]
a000-mainline:
          perform b100-init
          perform b200-term
b100-init: print "init"
b200-term: print "term"
perform a000-mainline
halt

expected results:
para a000-mainline
para b100-init
init
para b200-term
term
halt


my intention is to define each paragraph and then "perform" them. 
 But I haven't figured it out yet.

Houston, you've got a problem

The FORM is unnecessary.

you need to wrap your lines in some blocks

a000-mainline: [
          perform b100-init
          perform b200-term
]
b100-init: [print "init"]
b200-term: [print "term"]
perform a000-mainline
halt

Stupid me -- of course!!!

if debug? [print "para " paragraph]  <-- this isn't working just 
right.  I only get "para" and nothing after that when I expect the 
paragraph name to be printed.  Do I need mold or something like that?

be carefull with the typo

perform: funct ['paragraph] [
	if debug? [print  ["para " paragraph]]      
	do get paragraph
]

And you can use FUNC here instead of FUNCT. FUNCT has more definition-time 
overhead.

Perfect!!! -- Thank you again.  I didn't know about the GET function

it'll be 10 $

Thank you again Steeve and BrianH.  Now it is so easy for me to just 
set the DEBUG? value and see my script being executed!

Only $10 -- you got it.  maybe I can buy you a round or two if we 
ever get at a DevCon!!!

Notice the use of the lit-word calling convention in the PERFORM 
function: This passes the word unevaluated and lets you get from 
it later.

There is so much to learn from you guys!  :-)

Or you can lend them on my Pokerstar's account :)

Jeez, i run bad currently

I should code instead, i'm better at that