r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[!REBOL3-OLD1]

Steeve
23-Apr-2009
[13468x2]
but a crash, geez....
it's violent
BrianH
23-Apr-2009
[13470x2]
The HTTP scheme needs a lot of work at the moment - it's a work in 
process. What is there already works great, but it's incomplete.
I think error handling is part on the incomplete part.
Steeve
23-Apr-2009
[13472x2]
yep but there is more than just a missing part in the error handling, 
it's crashing rebol, it's bad...
and i can't say why, there is no given reason
BrianH
23-Apr-2009
[13474]
I haven't had the chance to go over the scheme yet, and Gab and Maarten 
have been busy.
Pekr
24-Apr-2009
[13475]
New blog posted - http://www.rebol.net/r3blogs/0193.html- collect-words
BrianH
24-Apr-2009
[13476x2]
And that might be enogh to implement Ladislav's FUNCTOR - I'll check 
with Carl first to see if he has any plans for the existing one.
Ladislav, I've made the case for your FUNCTOR in R3 chat #3726. Join 
in on the discussion if you like.
Steeve
25-Apr-2009
[13478x4]
hey guys, have we a clever way to extract same variables with different 
values in 2 different objects ?
In one word: the difference.
I mean, without doing a nasty loop
i tried, 
>> difference/skip values-of obj1 values-of obj2 2

but it fails (something wrong with the difference function when values 
are none!)
Please, don't say to me, the only hope is to do a foreach loop.
not rebolish
Henrik
25-Apr-2009
[13482]
you write VALUES-OF, but do you mean a block of words that are different?
Steeve
25-Apr-2009
[13483]
you may come with something completly different, i just want the 
list of variables which have different values
Henrik
25-Apr-2009
[13484]
now that we have FOREACH on objects, it could be a good time to ask 
on the blog or in chat.
Steeve
25-Apr-2009
[13485]
Hey, that's not clever at all
Henrik
25-Apr-2009
[13486]
I was referring to that the FOREACH change was in the same ballpark 
as would be required for this to work without making loops.
Steeve
25-Apr-2009
[13487x3]
even with UNIQUE, i got a stupid result.

>> obj2: make obj1: context [a: b: none] [a: 1]
== make object! [
    a: 1
    b: none
]

>> unique/skip append body-of obj1 body-of obj2 2
== [
    a: none
    b: none
    b: none
]

what's wrong with all thess bugous functions ?
/skip doesnn't work at all in INTERSECT, UNIQUE, DIFFERENCE, UNION...
pfff....
Henrik
25-Apr-2009
[13490]
please note it in curecode, thanks
Steeve
25-Apr-2009
[13491x2]
boring...
it will be delayed until 2010
Henrik
25-Apr-2009
[13493]
and it won't be by not posting in curecode?
Steeve
25-Apr-2009
[13494]
i noticed the same bugs with R2 previously, never been corrected.

I think no one except me want to use those vector functions. I should 
forget it
Henrik
25-Apr-2009
[13495]
I should forget it

 nice attitude. why do you think the bugs haven't been fixed, then?
Steeve
25-Apr-2009
[13496]
It's only corrected if several user or Carl have the same wanting 
hurgently, if not, it will be delayed until the first beta release, 
in some years...
Henrik
25-Apr-2009
[13497]
and it won't be fixed at all if it's not reported to curecode.
Pekr
25-Apr-2009
[13498x3]
Steeve - you are not constructive, sorry. With messages like "boring", 
"pfff", "in some years", please save your comments for yourself then, 
if you don't belive that posting to CureCode and asking for priority 
change might help.
It is exactly attitude like yours, that is becoming boring ...
... at least to ppl, that try to change some things. R3 is simply 
not complete, that is the fact. So - we can either participate (but 
accept the incomplete state), or wait for final release ..
Steeve
25-Apr-2009
[13501x2]
exactly my opinion, i will wait
until the waiting bugs in curecode are all corrected, then i'll post 
new ones, i got new ones, several.
Henrik
25-Apr-2009
[13503]
Steeve, that is the incorrect method. If the bugs are not posted 
NOW, they may be harder to fix when R3 goes beta. We don't know, 
but Carl  has stated several times that when Core issues need to 
be looked in to, we must do that now.
PeterWood
25-Apr-2009
[13504]
I can understand how Steeve feels about posting bugs to CureCode. 
It's very frustrating that when bugs don't get looked at because 
they are not flavour of the day.
Steeve
25-Apr-2009
[13505]
Not my opinion concerning some bugs i found. 

I think they have a lower priority than those, I or other poeple, 
have posted currently.

I want my previous request corrected at first, then i'll come with 
new ones with lower priority.
If you don't agree with that, then find the bugs yourself
Henrik
25-Apr-2009
[13506x2]
Not posting bugs to curecode is a good way to betray the continuing 
development of R3.
And I basically strongly disagree with this method, because a non-posted 
bug report will eventually be forgotten by the person who found the 
bug until years later when it turns up again for a different person. 
It serves no purpose for anyone, not posting the report, including 
the would-be reporter.
PeterWood
25-Apr-2009
[13508]
I will continue to post bugs I find in CureCode when I find them 
but the lack of action on the bugs that I've posted (such as server 
ports not working on OS X) discourages me from doing more testing.
Steeve
25-Apr-2009
[13509]
If i see a better aknowledge of the priority of some bugs in curecode, 
then i will change my mind.
Henrik
25-Apr-2009
[13510]
Priority is not a parameter in the REPORTING of bugs. It is a paramenter 
in FIXING the bugs. I don't see how software development could work, 
if everyone posted bugs based on perceived priority on whether they 
would be fixed. Carl expects us to do alot of the work with finding 
bugs. When they will be fixed is up to him.
Pekr
25-Apr-2009
[13511x3]
Steeve - your attitude is the same what DocKimbel showed here some 
two weeks ago. I thought that I am talking to adult ppl, and I really 
don't understand such childish behaviour. Such an attitude is treat 
to those, who try to actually do something. Do you really think that 
the rest of us would not like to have R3 available few years ago?
So, if you feel you will not report bugs, then don't do it - what 
else could be said?
... everybody is free to do anything actually ...
Steeve
25-Apr-2009
[13514x2]
further...

Take the implementation of modules and protect stuffs, I agree it 
may be (maybe) deeply modify the core and it's why it's must be done 
now, accordingly Carl and BrianH.
But for a user concern, it has a very low priority.

It's only of interest for those who want to create new commercial 
applications with R3, in few years....

But we will not develop new applications, if some important things 
that were  working in R2 are not working anymore in R3.
It's what i call high priority, NO REGRESSION allowed.
something that worked in R2 must be corrected at first, something 
new can be postponed.
just my opinion
Henrik
25-Apr-2009
[13516x2]
But for a user concern, it has a very low priority.

 Correct. And you are not an R3 user. You are testing R3 alpha software. 
 Which is why it's essential to report bugs to Curecode.
Posting reports is in fact one of the main reasons that the R3 alpha 
is public.