World: r3wp

Oh, cool, I'll take a look :)

but it's weird...

Work in process, but how so?

I don't understant, the following parsings should be equal but it's 
not, why ???

parse a: "abcdef" [
    any [
          "b" remove -1
        | "cd" remove -2
        | skip
    ]
]
print a
parse a: "abcdef" [
    any [start: 
          "b" remove start 
        | "cd" remove start
        | skip
    ]
]
print a

Example of work in progress: The ? is likely to be renamed to =>, 
since that is the mathematical symbol for then (not greater-than, 
which is >=). However, => is not a valid word in R3 yet - the syntax 
parser needs to have that sequence of characters added as an exception, 
like <=. This was too mch work for the a83 release.

Answer to your question, Steeve: It's a bug.

Actually, my "awkward" example is the only one to work currently. 
;-)

If I get a chance today (I'm volunteering at a horror film festival), 
I'll write up CureCode tickets for all bad behavior.

As a "creature" ?

As a booth babe.

:)

BrianH: how do you know => is going to be added? Any new info from 
Carl? Because I noticed his reply stating => is problematic, and 
no indication that ? might be changed to =>

As for insert/remove stuff, I noticed Carl proposed new easier way 
of implementing it, but does it really mean we can't revert back 
to first meaning, if it makes sense? We should aim high = implement 
what is best, not what is easier to be implemented ...

It was problematic for a83, but Carl doesn't like ? for the same 
reason we don't, so he'll change it eventually (perfectionism).

And as for the insert/remove changes, I was saying that the originally 
proposed way was infeasible because of private discussions Carl and 
I had about the subject. Carl's version is more powerful anyways, 
if you include the integer version.

Carl said it was infeasibble.

Brian - if => would still be problematic because of REBOL parser, 
then I would still prefer at least >  ....

and if we free ?, will we use it for if/check?

> means greater-than in math. => means then.

If we free ? we probably won't use it in PARSE at all. CHECK will 
probably continue to be called IF.

Carl asks about the change of insert/remove/change semantics, upon 
Steeve's comments - http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/r3blog.r?view=0254#comments

It would be a loss of functionality, slower, and more memory-hungry, 
but I would be OK with it either way.

3:1 for current index based method to 'remove ...

re GUI - I proposed to set-up wiki page similar to Parse proposal. 
We have few request for View kernel itself, as well for VID.

I think, that everybody is waiting for your go. I think that most 
ppl here prefer you working on Core. Most of devs here will prefer 
complete Core, along with parse, extensions, host code released, 
networking protocols, cgi, console and especially some FIRST words 
on concurrency ...

it is easy to state - we are in beta, while missing on some features. 
As for BrianH, I think he wants to move to Scheme dialect revision, 
once parse is done.

Actually - ppl still think, that before the host code is released 
(and hence host using Extension api (I think)), we are still dependant 
on you doing all the work ....

The question is, if it makes sense to jump to GUI anytime soon, without 
Core stuff not being finished to beta status ...

I think there are a few ways to slice the pie.  Here are my main 
motivations:

Before you move on though, check CureCode - there's 4 new parse bugs 
:(

BrianH: parse is still not done, no? To/thru multiple is not in there 
yet :-)

First, it's easier to get a Core completed, so that those of us (and 
I include myself) can start using R3 for our servers and other such 
tasks.

Of course, there is also group interested in GUI - shadwolf, Steeve, 
me, maybe Henrik ....

It is for string parseing

Carl - I agree on that - Core first ...

I agree

So, we must then look at it: what critical things are missing from 
Core?  And...

How can we make it possible for other developers to help with what 
is missing?

there is - projects-plan.html. We should vote on features, update 
the projects-plan, and go for it.

Let me give an example...

Noone can help, if Host is not released, and host is not released, 
as it does not use Extensions. Extensions might require few requested 
features, etc. I think those things are obvious ...

Device extensions - that will makee it possible to start the database 
debate.

*Exactly*

BrianH stole my words.

But I think there's a bigger problem.

:)

We need to find a way to unify various efforts related to REBOL. 
 For example...

BrianH is your second brain and RT should put him under the contract 
:-)

If many users want SQLite inside REBOL, can *get them* to help make 
that happen.

BrianH and I work together well, but the two of us alone are not 
enough!