World: r3wp

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.

It will look silly with the numeric branch, but the functionality 
will still be there. Plus, it will look better with a rule1 that 
includes IF.

rule 1 including if? You mean IF proposal?

THEN ... like "When Rebol finally wakes up to their lame license 
THEN it may succeed"

Terry - your first post after XY months, and insulting?

I say - f*ck the licecne - that is for lamers to complain about :-)

How do you know what R3's license is, Terry? Have you read something 
we haven't?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp7r0j4XrO8

Don't see how that is on-topic in this group, though it's funny.

BrianH: we can hear it once and once again - open-source mantra. 
Well, your question is absolutly correct - noone knows the licence, 
yet ppl are complaining. We now have much more important stuff to 
solve. I expect RT keeping to its initial promise = host code = open-source, 
interpreter = closed source. But even with closed source Core, we 
have daily ability to influence its design. Parse project (and not 
only that) is clear example. If the community would not define it, 
it would not happen. Now why do I need Core to be open-sourced too? 
Maybe because of resources. But then - I can imagine 10 incompatible 
versions of R3 flying around ....

Terry - good night and be happy with all the open JS, html, and other 
very nice technologies :-)

BrianH: do you think we will get USE and INTO implemented for the 
first round of parse redo?

It's simple: Either the license will be acceptible to me, or I'll 
switch languages or make a clone. No problem :)

Because of that, I can be sure that the license will be acceptable 
to me.

BrianH: the worst thing is, that even if R3 would be open-sourced 
NOW, there would not be any new activity around. There was an ORCA 
- how is that there was very little community involvement? Open-source 
proponents would win their arguments, but they also very often expect, 
that millions of hours of new forces will magically appear and shift 
the projet to the new level.

... whereas the opposite is true. Carl asks for feedback. How many 
ppl gave Carl feedback towards VID? Me, you, Henrik? How many ppl 
do comment Parse? 5 - 8? So - let's concentrate upon finishing the 
plan with what we have, and save our complaints for later.

The simulation I've been running of Carl isn't good enough to replace 
him, so forking isn't that effective :)

Only blind can't see the advancement R3 took in last 1/2 a year. 
Hundred of tickets addressed per month ....

BrianH: re tasking - any new idea of what we are going to get, with 
what Carl said yesterday?

And I am quite satisfied with the parse feedback, especially when 
you include the original enhancements and the initial proposals during 
November through January.

Re: tasking, yes, I think I got it. Now I have an idea about how 
to review/nudge the proposals/tickets.

What is the outcome of Steeve's proposals? Carl said something about 
inlining of REMOVE. Will it change from the index based aproach, 
which is now implemented?

It won't be a pure erlang-style shared-nothing approach, but the 
message-passing will be there. We can optimize accordingly.

message passing? I like that :-) Amiga anyone? :-)

In alpha 83 we had a (broken) implementation of the REMOVE 2 proposal. 
In alpha 84 we will have REMOVE 1 instead (Steeve recreated this 
proposal). Let the best proposal win - I'm hoping for REMOVE 1, since 
it's nicer (if less powerful).

REMOVE 1 was my original REMOVE proposal, back in November.

It definitely seems, we are getting Device Extensions, right? (anticipating 
it according to yesterday's discussion)