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

World: r3wp

[!REBOL3-OLD1]

Steeve
15-May-2009
[14288x2]
But it worked, Better to have something bad working instead of nothing 
at all
i can't do test about something vanished
BrianH
15-May-2009
[14290]
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.
Pekr
15-May-2009
[14291x2]
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 :-)
BrianH
15-May-2009
[14293]
Actually, the issues he had with Draw were with the host interface 
design, not the plugin intterface design.
Graham
15-May-2009
[14294x2]
Did we ever reach a conclusion about Rebol scripts .. and to distinguish 
R3 vs R2 scripts?
rebol3 [ ] or using a 'needs ?
BrianH
15-May-2009
[14296x2]
Needs.
Which has been expanded to also import modules.
Graham
15-May-2009
[14298]
Does R2 recognise the 'needs ?
BrianH
15-May-2009
[14299]
The version part, yes.
Oldes
15-May-2009
[14300]
I also use .r3 extension
BrianH
15-May-2009
[14301]
There's nothing enforced about that, but it's good practice, and 
file association friendly.
Maxim
15-May-2009
[14302]
I use about 10 different rebol extensions already...  10 more for 
R3 version   ;-)
Graham
15-May-2009
[14303]
aren't those numeric r extensions used by rar ??
BrianH
15-May-2009
[14304x3]
.r03
They 0-pad.
RAR already switched to another naming convention, so we should still 
be good by the time REBOL 10 comes out :)
Graham
15-May-2009
[14307]
that's very reassuring.
Maxim
15-May-2009
[14308]
we should skip R4 and go directly to R10  or should it be ... RX 
 ;-)
BrianH
15-May-2009
[14309]
The prescription for what ails your systems? :)
Maxim
17-May-2009
[14310]
are the linux versions generally as up-to-date than the windows ones?
BrianH
17-May-2009
[14311]
More or less. The linux and osx versions are much more alpha than 
the windows versions. Lots of missing functionality.
Maxim
17-May-2009
[14312]
' :-(
BrianH
17-May-2009
[14313]
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.
Louis
22-May-2009
[14314]
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
>>
BrianH
22-May-2009
[14315]
Try it again - the server may have been busy. The HTTP scheme isn't 
as good as one would like yet.
Louis
22-May-2009
[14316]
Still no success. Could be my Internet connection, which has been 
horrible lately.
BrianH
22-May-2009
[14317]
Works for me, but I'm on Windows so platform differences may apply 
:(
Louis
22-May-2009
[14318]
** Access error: protocol error: "Timeout"
BrianH
22-May-2009
[14319]
Have you tried downloading manually from the web site? There were 
problems in a53 with permissions. That would be a different error 
on Windows, buut who knows?
Louis
22-May-2009
[14320]
rebol.com?
Henrik
22-May-2009
[14321]
Please keep trying. It may time out 10 times in a row and then it 
comes.
BrianH
22-May-2009
[14322]
http://www.rebol.com/r3/downloads.html
Louis
22-May-2009
[14323]
Thanks, Brian. Done.
RobertS
22-May-2009
[14324]
.
Henrik
22-May-2009
[14325]
http://www.rebol.net/r3blogs/0206.html

Details about R3 plugins.
Pekr
23-May-2009
[14326]
posted some questions to blog article ....
BrianH
23-May-2009
[14327]
So, you're asking if the plugin model will still follow the initial 
stated base requirements for a plugin model? :)
Paul
23-May-2009
[14328]
What are all the types of procedures calls that R3 will support. 
 I'm assuming that pass by value and pass by reference will be there 
but what other forms?
BrianH
23-May-2009
[14329]
Carl hasn't revealed that yet - which is why I keep asking for "in 
depth" explanations. This is another of those cases where Carl goes 
into a cave and comes out with something that is (usually) awesome. 
Design mode. He hasn't gotten to explanation mode yet.
Paul
23-May-2009
[14330]
Ok, thanks Brian.
BrianH
23-May-2009
[14331]
The "new evaluation model" of the command! type is what I find most 
interesting. That would be the only way to do other forms, but there 
isn't enough info out there to know whether it does.
Pekr
23-May-2009
[14332x2]
I don't understand your comment Brian. I am simply asking for R2 
DLL interface, but improved. I can understand that there is probably 
no need to introduce more than one way of how to interface external 
environment, but then I want R2 DLL like interface being a plugin. 
Of course, this capability is so basic though, that I want it inside 
of REBOL.exe
Brian: could such a "new evaluation model" help with something like 
rebcode replacement? :-)
BrianH
23-May-2009
[14334]
The problem is that the R2 DLL interface sucked. One of the base 
requirements of the R3 plugin model wass that it be powerful enough 
that you cold write a generic wrapper dialect as a plugin, and then 
use that dialect to specify the API a DLL.
Pekr
23-May-2009
[14335]
yes, that is what I want.
BrianH
23-May-2009
[14336]
Of course that wouldn't be as good as actually writing a custom plugin 
for the DLL (or more likely using one that someone else wrote).
Pekr
23-May-2009
[14337]
As for other blog - Objects as a base type ... is there any implication 
what it means for object semantics? IIRC you expected some changes 
in object semantics, but Carl states, that other types as ports, 
tasks, etc. share the implementation, so I wonder if you can really 
expect any change here?