World: r3wp

Is this our Meijeru? :-) http://users.telenet.be/rwmeijer/

same name as in chat

yes, although no mention of REBOL on his programming subsite - http://users.telenet.be/rwmeijer/proglang/


btw - I found out he was announcing complete DOM implementation for 
REBOL? Has anyone actually seen anything like that? 
http://www.mail-archive.com/[rebol-bounce-:-rebol-:-com]/msg03548.html

I got a copy but it was not useful for me.

I don't think it is.  Didn't he live in the States?  The link provided 
indicates he is living in Belgium.

the guy above is living in belgium.

He is slightly sloppy with his english, in a way that made me think 
it is not his first language.

Everyone who is interested in the typeset debate, look here: http://curecode.org/rebol3/ticket.rsp?id=820

The question is whether binary! should be part of the any-string! 
typeset in R3. Since the Unicode conversion, binaries are arguably 
*not* strings anymore. Even if they support the same operations, 
all of the other string types contain characters, while the binary! 
type contains unsigned 1-byte integers (which characters are not 
in R3). What do you think?

Couldn't the same be said about the image?

Image is not in any-string! either. The binary! type would remain 
in series!.

continuing discussion in I'm new group...


brian: no R3 chat account yet... its basically that I'm keeping my 
energy.  I really would love to participate more in R3 but since 
most of what I do is commercial (REBOL), time invested in R3 is severely 
lost in the short to medium term.


but I think its now progressed enough that I really should participate 
more.  


I think I have a lot of insight to bring to the table since I'm one 
of those few developpers who has been using REBOL commercially for 
just about ever, I've been using a module clone for the last 7-8 
years,  built 4 complete view engines (even ported glayout to python 
;-),  implemented some of the largest apps (code wise), and have 
several dozen REBOL APIs under my belt.

I am reviewing the module system now (well, not right now since I 
am working). We have tried to balance simplicity and security, but 
I think the way we did that balance is to have two extremes which 
you can choose between with one refinement. I'm checking whether 
the simplicity extreme is too insecure, and whether the security 
extreme is too difficult to use.

The reason I am checking this now is because it is time to backport 
the module system to R2. The code is pretty easy (and mostly written) 
- the design issues are not. Since you've written a module system, 
your input may be valuable.

There will be changes to the R2 version of the module system due 
to the global context, but even that can be balanced.

this can be a big discussion... want to do so privately?

cause all I've read of the R3 engine, slim already handles a part 
from actual enforcing of the privacy.

it acutally does a lot more.

Yeah, let's not dump the details on everyone until we have some common 
ground :)

my input can be on what I did and didn't end up using afte 7 years... 
some features sound great on paper, but then don't really get you 
more productive and some features I've never used myself.

It's funny to see Carl wondering why there is not more requests related 
to the use of external libraries in R3.
Not so funny in fact.

If that feature, had not been discarded in R3, perhaps there would 
be more tries and more requests.

Not discarded, scheduled for a redesign. R2's FFI is really bad.

But it worked, Better to have something bad working instead of nothing 
at all

i can't do test about something vanished

Alpha. And the new model won't be compatible, though there is a proposal 
to make a plgin that implements a variant of the R2 FFI.

But Steeve is right - I had to correct Carl - the motives were quite 
different: some few weeks ago, he said that we should write it down. 
Once done, he said he tried to design plug-in interface, and got 
some issues with dynamic code like draw. So he worked on another 
proposition. I asked for more info, but he said he will release it 
later, because it had wider consequences ...

so ... now might be correct time for him to post some ideas :-)

Actually, the issues he had with Draw were with the host interface 
design, not the plugin intterface design.

Did we ever reach a conclusion about Rebol scripts .. and to distinguish 
R3 vs R2 scripts?

rebol3 [ ] or using a 'needs ?

Needs.

Which has been expanded to also import modules.

Does R2 recognise the 'needs ?

The version part, yes.

I also use .r3 extension

There's nothing enforced about that, but it's good practice, and 
file association friendly.

I use about 10 different rebol extensions already...  10 more for 
R3 version   ;-)

aren't those numeric r extensions used by rar ??

.r03

They 0-pad.

RAR already switched to another naming convention, so we should still 
be good by the time REBOL 10 comes out :)

that's very reassuring.

we should skip R4 and go directly to R10  or should it be ... RX 
 ;-)

The prescription for what ails your systems? :)

are the linux versions generally as up-to-date than the windows ones?

More or less. The linux and osx versions are much more alpha than 
the windows versions. Lots of missing functionality.

' :-(

There's lots of missing functionality on windows too, just different 
stuff. Windows is the primary platform until the host code gets released, 
which should be soon now.

This is what I get when I try to upgrade on my Ubuntu 8.10 box:

>> upgrade
Fetching upgrade check ...

Script: "REBOL 3.0 Version Upgrade" Version: 1.0.0 Date: 7-Apr-2009
Checking for updates...

R3 current version: 2.100.54.4.2 
It was released on: 16-May-2009/22:45:17 

You need to update R3.
Download new release? yes
Downloading...
** Access error: protocol error: "Timeout"

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

>> why?
Opening web browser...
Couldnt get a file descriptor referring to the console
>>

Try it again - the server may have been busy. The HTTP scheme isn't 
as good as one would like yet.