World: r3wp

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?

yes ...

back....

If you use the docs wiki, a trusted subset of the community (read: 
no spammers) can edit it.

so what should we do? Suggest some stuff we think should be in-there 
for beta? But where to suggest it? Most interested ppl are here, 
not just right now. So we can collect some stuff, and post it to 
you "somewhere" - maybe R3 chat Priorities group?

Yes, ok. So, do we want to add any other columns to it?

Columns? Maybe rows? :-)

Yes, use #358 for notes on it.

Rows are easy. Columns are not.

What other columns we might need? R3 version? E.g. 3.0, 3.1, etc.? 
Is that needed now?

I was thinking just a "Note" column. We can use it for whatever.

Ok, must go. Will get that project list on the Docs wiki today.  
Let's get it filled in, but also think about how to get more community 
involvement in R3 as it moves forward rapidly now, but must still 
accelerate to reach the release timeline ("Autumn 2009").

Don't forget to check CureCode

Will do.

Don't do we set our time ourselves?

Why Autumn? :-) Anything more strategic we might not know about? 
:-) Or you yourself want to finally move it to final stage?

ok, anyway - will wait for the editable doc ....

WRT editing the function reference, I suggest we simply go through 
them, one at a time alphabetically, which is what I'm doing now. 
I already found a few bits that needed change.

http://www.rebol.com/r3/docs/functions.html

Quick link.

I suspect community involvement in R3 will increase once there's 
a modern communication channel.  Asking people to participate in 
some shell based chat is really retro.

The other issue is that for many things .. R2 is good enough .. a 
bit like XP users not wanting to upgrade to Windows 7 :)

... based on their experience of Vista, and without any consideration 
of the merits of 7. Very similar.

AND renamed to STAY, ? renamed to THEN, or so it seems for A84 ....

we are also getting mutliple to/thru. So, now from interesting enhancements, 
INTO and USE are not implemented yet ...

Well, STAY can be dropped later, to be replaced by AND.

We don't need STAY, we need AND.

or we need both

why to replace anything later???

It seems to me, that Carl does not understand, what AND proposal 
requests? Maybe he does not even regards AND related bugs being actually 
bugs?

We need AND more, particularly the feature that was missing from 
a83 (bug#1238).

that should be corrected, before another release with non desired 
behaviour comes out ...

That was the most important feature of AND.

Damned altme, another lost post ...

I am not sure I understand the purpose of THEN. I would like to ask, 
what is the difference between following two cases?:

rule1 rule2 |  rule3
rule1 then rule2 | rule3


- in both cases, rule1 has to be matched in order to proceed to rule2
- in both cases, if rule1 fails, then rule3 is applied, no?

Just edited the parse proposals, based on recent discussions. Added 
a STAY proposal, renamed EITHER 2 to THEN, added the controversy 
to the priorities section.

by naming => to 'then, we also probably lost the advantage to combine 
it with numerical value allowing us to choose a "branch"?

Pekr, the advantage is that if rule1 succeeds and rule2 fails, rule3 
is skipped instead of backtracked to.