World: r3wp

I proposed change of command! to external! extern! or something like 
that. We will see, if Carl reacts to that ....

The word "command" is more specific, and better expresses what you 
are referring to.

I have heard at least one other opinion, that name "command" might 
be too worthy to waste on simple and signle thing as wrapping merely 
a funciton call. Of course even Devices have commands, but those 
are not probably rebol level related and influence nothing ...

You mentioned that "command" would need to be reserved for devices. 
There's no reason that devices couldn't use the existing command! 
type. It's very flexible.

Carl said that devices would be a variant on extensions.

No, I said, that device commands probably don't influence rebol level 
code, so that we are eventually free to rename extension command 
to extension! term. That was just a thought, in case we would have 
some better usage for 'command term later. Nothing really important 
imo. Extension commands are not much advanced - they are just descriptor 
for particular meaning.

When I think "command", I think - dialect ...

Sorry, I wrote that in relation to what you had said on the blog, 
not here.

and to just describe meaning of wrapping a call, I though external!, 
extern!, ext!, wrap! could be used instead. Probably too late to 
try to convince anyone :-)

Those are all modifier words. We need a noun.

more interesting stuff on Chat :-) I expressed opinion, that we use 
assymetry for read and write with strings, Carl objected. His second 
post might be interesting for you, as he for few moments thought, 
where is the right place for such stuff. I think that you would enjoy 
putting your opinion there. Of course - my post was done just to 
provoke some discussion :-)

btw - "external", english-wise, can't be thought as a noun?

I just read it, and was about to reply to your counter-post, just 
to one point.
External

 is an adjective. When used as a noun, its subject is implied. Bad 
 form.

OK, just read your post, makes sense ...

as for Chat - is there any shortcut to know, where I am posting by 
default? I mean - the only commands I use is "n" for new posts. The 
I want to add a reply. But adding a reply is different then simply 
posting "p". But - when adding a reply "r", I specify the message 
number, so I can be sure, where it goes. But where does simple "p" 
post it?

In your current location (look at the prompt).

r posts in the same header as the original post, but the post can 
be moved later.

hardly to know (when using n, lm), what is your "original post" - 
is it the latest one? I simply have to go to particular message number, 
and then use 'p or 'r there .... I think that for 'lm, I would welcome 
message category/path being displayed on the first line ....

I use nn to determine the latest posts, then read the posst I want 
to reply to, then reply.

The "original post" you are replying to is displayed by n or nn with 
a > on the left of it. I usually enter the number for the post I 
want to reply to first, which displays in and sets the >. Then I 
use r. I wish there was an rp command...

So am I correct thinking, that when I use "p" after "n", then I am 
replying in the header of message marked with ">"?

r to reply, not p, but yes.

It you do p, you post in the header you are in (you can tell which 
that is from the prompt).

after "n", my prompt is: "pekr:>>" - so where actually I would post? 
:-)

Yeah, that's an annoying bug :(

It's why I always go somewhere on purpose, either by typing  in the 
header number manually or reading a message on the subject.

Brain - what is holding you back now from integrating your module 
changes? :-)

I've had a week of dealing with personal/family stuff. Some of us 
don't have blogs/twitter :-/

no problem with personal stuff. I meant it other way - if you are 
waiting for some other Carl's fixes, or is it your turn? If it is 
your turn, it will come, week or two sooner or later, who cares, 
just take your time :-)

It's my turn - I only had one unexpected factor, and it doesn't depend 
on Carl's work.

Brian - as for #706 - how is rebol.r placed in system/options/home 
more secure than having it in current directory?

Is this a bug?
blk: [a: 23 b: 34]
to-object blk
** error - invalid argument
make object! blk
== make object! [a: 23 b: 34]

What's the difference between the make and to functions?

TO does conversion, MAKE does construction.

As for bug#706, it's a file permissions thing. You can set the permissions 
of the directory that REBOL is installed in, so that only authorized 
users can write to it (generally, only the administrator). This means 
that %rebol.r can't be written by untrusted scripts. If you let %rebol.r 
be loaded from just any diirectory, regardless of who has permissions 
to write to the directory, then you have enabled %rebol.r to be used 
as a malware installer.

well, any "system friendly" (=somewhere deep shitty path) placement 
is VERY uncomfort for me :-)

I will have to think about it, but if you think about script's current 
dir = user has already right to place script there, why should placing 
user.r there be a security violation? Well, truth is, that most of 
the time I am local admin, so my knowledge is limited here ...

The %rebol.r file is only meant to be used by the person who installs 
REBOL, for the purposes of adding custom stuff that is specific to 
a particular computer. Loading standard libraries will be handled 
by the module system instead. This is the same reason why we are 
planning to replace %user.r with a preferences file.

I will not use any system, where any of my files resides outside 
my current dir. I hate that, and imo this is fatal design error of 
last century :-)

Then put REBOL in your current directory too.

I hope R3 does not need to be installed at all. I use flash disk 
all the time - Total commander, XnView, Miranda - no installation. 
I can tell you - sometimes in the future, there will not be any installation 
process at all :-)

yes, REBOL in my current directory ...

No install needed. The whole %rebol.r concept is meant for use by 
sysadmins who want to control what programs can be run on their system 
- there is even a Windows Policy that lets you limit which directories 
programs can run from. Regular users would never use %rebol.r at 
all.

In general, if I were a sysadmin, I would not load any functions 
in %rebol.r - I would just put a call to SECURE in there, to limit 
access to my resources. This would help me lock down my user's scripts. 
I wouldn't use %rebol.r at all for user's personal computers, just 
for public-use computers.

bbl

%rebol.r is very usefull when it works under R2 (which it doesn't 
most of the time).  you can put a few generalized functions you always 
want access to... setting lib pats, protecting/securing them, loading 
some libs by default, etc.

where is the %rebol.r file supposed to be in R3... In the same dir 
as %rebol.exe... no?

In the same directory as rebol.exe, yes.

Under R3 the generalized functions would be in modules - it makes 
scripts more predictable.

well, I've been doing that for years with slim  ;-)

Inspiration!