World: r3wp

...but if we use the term "persistent" instead of "static", what 
would be used instead of "dynamic"?

Dynamic. Local variable capture is half the point of the function, 
so making the set-words in the body persistent too is a must.

So a functor, with no variables initialized would basically not be 
a functor. You could evolve a functor with many static variables 
gradually towards a normal function with no static variables.

(with Ladislav's initialization idea.)

Ladislav, the reason we are asking about how people use %user.r is 
so that we make sure that alternate facilities exist to do what people 
did with %user.r, but safely. The old behavior of %user.r will be 
going away in R3 for security reasons. However, we have your uses 
covered by our plans:
- Preferences will be handled by the new %user.r
-You can include your must-use functions in a module.

making the set-words in the body persistent is a must

 - let me disagree with this. I think, that the INIT block is a must, 
 since the function cannot initialize the static variables as noted 
 above. OTOH, every variable not initialized during the function creation 
 time should be automatically dynamic, since it does not make much 
 sense to have it uninitialized when using it as static

Back to FUNCTOR, that and FUNCT are most often going to be used where 
the user will only specify the body, not the init or spec.

FUNCT sounds perfectly logical and usable as is, but I really cannot 
imagine the usage of a persistent value that cannot be initialized 
at function creation time

They could be initialized at first call. We already have facilities 
to do what you describe.

it simply does not make sense to me

(You mean *specifically* initialized, with the initialization block; 
they could be initialized to NONE..)

aha, during first call - how does the user find out which call is 
the first one?

VALUE?

I agree with Ladislav, using conditional code (eg. using VALUE?) 
is kind of ugly.

Actually, we are going to make a DEFAULT function, but that is one-value-at-a-time 
until DO/next works.

...the VALUE? looks inefficient and (IMO) not the proper way. Why 
should I check always something, that can be done properly just once?

Remember that the user won't be specifying the init block most of 
the time, just the body. Internal code would specify the init.

You mean the init block would be built automatically from the body 
block?

FUNCT and FUNCTOR are for defining handlers, though FUNCT is also 
used a lot in mezzanine code. The user would only specify the body 
block.

when I used a static local variable, I always initialized it at the 
function creation time using my Lfunc. I am sure I wouldn't touch 
a function with static locals not having proper initialization.

, but YMMV

We can initialize them to NONE if you like, but having them be unset 
was deemed more valuable from a debugging standpoint.

well, I do not like NONE (debugging purposes) either

I see no fault with Ladislav's proposed init block.

So far FUNCTOR hasn't really been used, so now is the time to change 
it if we are going to do so. The variable capture is a must though, 
since it will be used where the spec can't be specified by the user.

Oh, now I see what you meant about handlers.

yes, that can be used, but I suggest the uninitialized variables 
to be captured as dynamic, while the initialized be captured as static

does that make sense?

(I mean for your planned use)

In general R3 is moving towards specifying handlers as code blocks 
passed to FUNCT or FUNCTOR with standard specs specified internally. 
This is their reason for existence.

BBL, have a meeting :)

So how would a user, when specifying a handler, which becomes the 
functor body, specify that a given variable is to be static, and 
that another variable is to be dynamic?

If FUNCTOR scans the given body block and treats all variables the 
same, then that control is lost by the user. Are we happy to lose 
that control?

Maybe FUNCTOR should have the initialization block like Ladislav 
suggests, and a more specific "handler-func" function be created 
for the specific handler use Brian is talking about?

if you are asking me, then the static variables may be captured from 
the INIT block, all other from the body, but it looks, that BrianH 
intended to have all variables static in a Functor, except for the 
variables from the SPEC block

Why couldn't the init block be inside the body block, in first position?

(.... maybe not such a good idea..)

yes, then it might be better to use the same approach as the MAKE 
funtion in R3 seems to use

I need to sleep on that...

Ladislav, great to see you back!!!  Now, tell us where have you been 
and why gone so long?

One thing to remember is that these function-building functions will 
be called a lot, so fast-and-simple is better than complex.

Ladislav, strangely enough there are also persistent words defined 
for the words in the spec, if they are set with set-words in the 
body. You can access them through self. It's just that the spec takes 
binding priority, so direct access to the words in the spec will 
be bound to the spec. There are many potential advantages to this, 
but the main reason this was done was speed.

FUNCT works well, but is too slow and has too much overhead. We already 
had to make one error go away to remove the screen for spec words 
overhead (see bug#717), but it still has the overhead of a temporary 
object which we haven't removed yet (see bug#544).


If you had FUNCTOR work the way you say, you would have to somehow 
distinguish words in the persistant object (as specified with init) 
from words that should be made into locals, which would add back 
the same overhead that the change referred to in bug#717 got rid 
of, as REBOL code. This would make FUNCTOR have much less performance 
than the equivalent code: CONTEXT [var1: 'blah ... SET 'func1 FUNC 
[...] [...]]

In general we are trying to deal with the problem in R2 where many 
functions were optimized away in high-performance code, so they end 
up being a waste of space. Many former mezzanines are now native, 
and many others are changed to make their overall usage more efficient. 
It's a balance.

Currently,  i have a crash  when i start the chat with r3-a48 under 
Vista.
Obviously, i can't see what is the bug, 

And when i try with the previous version i got  (a42)
i got this error: 
--- Note: checking for new messages

*** RebDev Error: server connection failed, is server down? (server-failed)
** Script error: cause-error-here has no value

** Where: error if unless request-serve if check-msgs check-new make 
context do
catch applier do try chat
** Near: error result


We have no way to return in a safe situation and can't guess what 
is the bug indeed.


Is Carl aware of that problem, i didn't see anything related to a 
crash of a48 when starting the chat ?

try again

It works for me. Does this happen every time?

Not anymore, but it was like that during 1 hour at least

damit, i tried during one hour and just when you say: try again, 
it works....

i have very

i have a very bad connection currently, could it be related to some 
network errors bad managed by the http scheme ?