World: r3wp

well, the example

    reduce [to-set-word 'a 2]

is not R3-ish, in R3 it could have been:

    reduce [quote a: 2]

oh, didn't see that one before.

yes, Quote is a new function. A mezzanine, actually

See the source, Henrik

doh :-)

Why to use reduce when you must defend your words by aditional armour 
:o

as follows: reduce [quote a: 1 + 1]

, i.e. in situations, where you actually do want to compute some 
parts of the block

nevertheless, I do not think, that Reduce (or Compose) is ideal, 
I proposed an alternative

in Reduce you have to "mark" what should be kept, while I prefer 
to mark what should be computed

Meaning extensions this should be used for some lexical operations 
or code trimming, I've think abour extensions in pure functional 
way before

(which is the case of Compose, except for the fact, that it does 
not handle parens good enough for me)

It is true that there are always new features that it takes a little 
time to understand the usefulness.
I'm caught regularly.

Even if I had noticed the existence of QUOTE, I saw no interest until 
the Ladislav's example.

glad to advertise this useful new feature

I suppose 'build is kind of an opposite to 'reduce.

yes, or, stated differently, it is a kind of improved Compose

Perhaps a shortcul should be defined. Because I feel that it will 
be often used as an alternative to COMPOSE.
Is this name QUOTE not a bit too long ?

(i.e. my idea, how Compose should have worked)

it has a few gotchas though. can they be removed?

*shortcut

it = 'build

please, check http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Replacementand add your 
notes/preferences

(this is where the Quote function appeared, btw)

I didn't knew this page. Shame on me

some proposals for a short  alias of  QUOTE.
ice
lay
sit

the biggest advantage of the word 'quote is, that it is somewhat 
"standard"/"understandable"/"self-explanatory"

i just think about an alias to shorten our code, the standardd word 
QUOTE would stay.

so, for example the expressions:

    'a

, and

    quote a

have the same effect

, but, certainly, a simple shortcut may be of use

I have an old quote func as well. Two actually, and they do very 
different things. One prevents evaluation, and one encloses the value 
in double quote chars. I think the latter is the better use of the 
name, and we should come up with a better name for the func that 
prevents evaluation.

keep
 ?

KEEP is used inside COLLECT.  Something along the lines of LIT or 
LITERAL clearly says what it does.

One of my problems with R3 is that I get this feeling that an R3 
beta is immenant but feel it is still long way off and have concerns 
about the negative impact that will bring.  There is a great deal 
of expectation for the beta and I feel it is going to be viewed on 
Monday morning as a disappointment when it comes.  I'm hoping that 
the REBOL team makes sure that it hasen't left little things undone 
such as being able to change a date on a directory, etc...

That's part of the host code is it ot?

n

Pavel, about bug #1399, we need to dig deeper to get a more accurate 
report for Carl, so he can fix it quickly. Which file transfer example 
are you talking about here?

http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Port_Examples-> 4.4 Transfer a large file

I do get interruptions during transfer here, but they are not reliable 
in size.

In my machine this happen at the same point each time single client, 
but originally I've found this when I run 2 simultaneous clients 
with different large files (my was 50 and 100 MB)

Anyway I'm glad to you acknowledged the bug. Together with bug #1367 
and unsure garbage collection this prevents to build reliable (even 
simple) TCP servers.

I don't think this is the same bug. I get different interruptions 
and no stack overflow.

Anyway, there's a lot to dig through here.

#1367, why this one ?

(sorry, forgot to mention that I didn't get a stack overflow)

Sorry Typo #1369

Henrik, i guess  your case  is covered by #1369 aswell

I only use a single client/server.

The difference is that #1399 breaks even if single client is running, 
I've observed that filetransfer goes parallel even for some time 
(but not finish) when two clients was run. So the difference was 
mutual block happen after some time. (Henrik you are quicker in typing")

Pavel, what happens for me is that:

1. I start the server and it waits like it should

2. Then I start the client and transfer begins. At some point around 
10-20 MB in, the server just stops and the client returns to console. 
After a few seconds the server also returns to the console.

3. If I then start the server again, the read continues for another 
80000 bytes, like this:

>> do %/c/serve.r
Script: "Untitled" Version: none Date: none
subport read
len: 32000 total: 19192000 of 406258740...read
subport read
len: 32000 total: 19224000 of 406258740...read
subport read
len: 9000 total: 19233000 of 406258740...read
subport read
len: 7000 total: 19240000 of 406258740...read
subport close


And then the port closes and the server quits again, unless I start 
the client.

Windows platform?

yes, XP under Parallels.