World: r3wp

So, you want "parse continuations".

sort of... ::-)

streamed parsing? :-)

Incremental parsing.

Yes, I understand. That would need to be 3.1.  We do not want to 
delay 3.0.

sort of... :-)

Anyway... Pekr.... I want to note one final thing.

listening :-)

I figured out how to do PARSE on seekable ports, so that might handle 
a lot of the problems.

We need a way to make the "todo list" accessible and we need users 
to help us maintain it.

An example is this...

Carl, you mentioned a while ago that you urged us to work on the 
docs. Does this mean we can fill out the function reference with 
examples without them being overwritten?

Maxim needs some changes for extensions... and has posted them somewhere, 
but I'm not sure where.

Chat ... it was about callbacks IIRC and some ideas ...

Henrik, yes... please!  Every edit is saved.

In R3 chat, plls a referenced web address.

#5045 in Chat ...

But, we can also add locking to the docs... if we want.

Pekr, for some things, I need more of a todo list rather than message 
thread.

I think it is ok to post it in CureCode, since that's easy to track.

Speaking of which, add finishing the PROTECT changes to the list. 
All details in CureCode.

Even if I've said, "don't post it there"... I now say, better there 
than nowhere.

so why just not to chat upon some areas and fill in already good 
project-plan?

Pekr, yes good.

So, when and where?

Carl - R3 Chat is not nowhere, no? It was created to be a developer's 
tool too. But - we can make projects-plan.html a wiki page, so we 
can edit it and fill it with detail?

http://www.rebol.com/r3/project-plans.html

Using the docs wiki, not DocBase.

(I am quite sure that BrianH has some kind of microwave beam and 
reads my thoughts.)

:-)

Pekr: what do you mean "R3 Chat is not nowhere, no?"

I'm running you in simulation :)

BrianH: now what is some secret RT's plan? Come on - you can read 
Carl's mind, no? :-)

Lol. :)

It's a secret :)

Again about parse, there was that proposal to execute words bunded 
with functions and to parse their result instead of doing nothing 
currently.
It would allow to construct dynamic rules.
Any opinion ?

Carl - because you said you need more than particular thread posted. 
So I replied, that R3 Chat was supposed to be a streamlined and isolated 
Dev comm channel for us, and as such is not "nowhere", but now I 
can see I mixed two your replies, so forget it ...

Steeve, post that to the parse group, and I will answer it.

OK, to get back focused - so what is NEXT? :-) Do we rework the priority 
plan? Do we need to? Projects-plan needs imo few edits, no?

i already posted it, and you said it was interesting but the other 
people didn't react...

Steeve: Well, then perhaps it's time for a blog to make afinal decision.

(I will attempt to do so today -- a busy day.)

Pekr, yes, let's revise the priority plan.

That was one of the original parse proposals, Steeve, from 5 years 
ago. If those functions could take arguments and have local vars, 
almost all of the parse operations could be replaced with such functions. 
There was even a suggested rule! function type.

i don't think it needs a special function type.

It was thought to require redoing PARSE from scratch though, so USE 
was suggested instead.

Pekr, I am not sure how the "community" can edit the project plan... 
It is better to simply mention what edits are needed, and we can 
updated it quite rapidly (it's built by a REBOL script.)

it's a function ? parse execute it and use her result as a rule

i think it's simple enough like that, but powerfull

Pekr?