World: r3wp

The difference in overhead is large, but not sure how much it matters 
to anyone.

no prob with me even with the same name

overhead: yes, I found a test showing really huge diff when not generating 
blocks every now and then

It would matter to me. If DO/next were more efficient, I would not 
consider use of it to be a sign of a bad function :)

I'm not that worried about compatibility here - see bug#666 :)

It would be simple to search for, like copy/deep which is also improved 
in R3.

thanks, Carl. BTW, I am using www.rebol.org as a truly random source, 
since it is so easy in REBOL

errata: www.random.org

I just read bug #666. Cool number and cool ticket at once :-)

When I saw that number coming up, I had to do something appropriate 
there :)

I just lost my connection to rebol.net -- quite odd -- as if a router 
along the way just stopped working.

See R3 Chat #4403 regarding how to get new R3 to test DO/next.

Carl, btw, something in liquid is causing a  prior versio of R3 to 
crash.  I'll try next week with the latest version, there might be 
some new tickets coming as part of the R3 conversion of liquid.

BTW, I estimate DO/next overhead about 30% of full speed DO.

quite slow, no?

Maxim: is it just the math part of Liquid or includes graphics?

Pekr, no... that's very fast!

There were no changes in gfx kernel for quite some time, no? Well, 
but maybe it could be related due to some other changes?

carl: just the dataflow part.... the graphics engine is obviously 
not compatible.

In other words, it is running at 66% of full speed of REDUCE!!

its an object within an object, so I am thinking it has something 
to do with binding.

Maxim: ah good, I look foward to seeing the problem.

BTW, there is a bug in objects related to a copy loop if the object 
references itself (directly or via a block).

Is that  new?

I can't wait to convert liquid  to a datatype, its going to be soooo 
much more sexy, and easy for everyone to "get".

No, it's in the bug db, but under an odd ticket title.

the only thing is that the inner object (the shared class) gets a 
reference to the outer object (the instance) as its first parameter, 
just like the R2 face/feel

Maxim - so you are the second one to BrianH waiting for user-types 
:-)

I've been waiting for user types since core beta  ;-)

thats core v1 :-)

I'm OK with coming in second here, as long as user-defined types 
can include function types :)

Carl - maybe we could just rename May plan to the June one? It came 
late and imo if you were supposed to write new one, it would not 
be much different, or would it?

Maxim - you are so long here remembering R1? :-)

reduci: func ["Example of reduce using DO/next" blk] [
	out: make block! 3
	forskip blk 0 [append/only out do/next blk 'blk]
	out
]

Please, a new June plan that also recaps the May accomplishments 
:)

Maxim, I haven't been here that long - just got here for the release 
of R2, though I did use R1 for one project.

I remember eagerly waiting for view  :-)

The View alpha/beta list was fun :)

It was called Ally, and I still have it archived :-)

Sterling Newton, Jeff Kreis, Holger Kruse, Jim Goodnow - RT was big 
company back then :-)

the thing I miss most is reading about REBOL on every tech news site 
on the net every other week.

well, we are so small, that we don't even update rebolweek properly. 
It will be more difficult to get noticed once again, as we missed 
some momentum, but it can be done. Done by example, by some work 
- e.g. posting news to OSNews.com etc., or wrapping something like 
Google Wave, showing the world JS UI is still slow crap :-)

and the helpfull and always generous support that Bo would give out

Shouldn't do/next not allocating new block be called do/next/into 
instead of coming with other tricks?

No, the /into option doesn't work like that. The /next word could 
be named cont, since it is a kind of continuation :)

I would really rather have the non-block-allocating DO/next, even 
if it isn't consistent with LOAD/next or TRANSCODE/next. DO of block 
is lower-level than those two, in terms of overhead.

However, if we want to change LOAD/next to match it's an easy fix.

'do/next - I use it in a function as a subverted version of 'case. 
 Perhaps if that's a bad function, there is an alternate way to implement 
it?

We are implementing it in the alternate way already :)

Oh, you meant your subverted (?) CASE, not DO/next. CASE itself is 
very good, and we use it extensively.

rebol/next ?