World: r3wp

I don't see how the overhead of continue would be greater than the 
overhead of further evaluation where it isn't used.

I tried timing tests on my R2 ad R3 examples.
R3 runs in about half the time. 

Conclusion: 'continue is a good optimisation over loop 1 [...break...]

That does not say anything about the overheads of 'continue.....Just 
that an extra loop is an extra overhead.

>>  loop 1 [break blah: 1 blahblah: 2]
>> find first system/words 'blahblah
== [blahblah]

I think that Rebol first must parse the block to evaluate into 'tokens', 
that's why the words are defined as unset in the system/words

Exactly. It must load the block, so create the words. Then it can 
do it.

REBOL/View 2.7.6.3.1 14-Mar-2008
Copyright 2000-2008 REBOL Technologies.  All rights reserved.
REBOL is a trademark of REBOL Technologies. WWW.REBOL.COM
>> load [blah: 1]
== [blah: 1]
>> find first system/words 'blah
== [blah]
>> blah
** Script Error: blah has no value
** Where: halt-view
** Near: blah

REBOL/View 2.7.6.3.1 14-Mar-2008
Copyright 2000-2008 REBOL Technologies.  All rights reserved.
REBOL is a trademark of REBOL Technologies. WWW.REBOL.COM
>> loop 1 [break blah: 1]
>> find first system/words 'blah
== [blah]
>> blah
** Script Error: blah has no value
** Where: halt-view
** Near: blah

By the way, doing

	find first system/words 'any-word-you-like


will always succeed, because before the console evaluates this line, 
it first loads it, so the word will be added, and thus, be found.

A better test is:

	"any-word-you-like" = last first system/words

which does not introduce a new word before evaluation is done.

>> loop 1 [break blah: 2]
>> last first system/words
== blah

Anton, I think that would be a nice topic for a blog post.

Very Heisenberg; Call the post, Anton's Postulate for getting round 
the REBOL uncertainty principle.   ;)

How do I submit a request for Carl to include a feature in R3?

rebdev is the shortest path for now. I can relay it.

except, rebdev seems to be down. he said that some changes were going 
to be made... will see if it comes back up in a few hours.

Henrik my request is a change for ports.

You know the way we have open/lines function,  I would like to see 
open/blocks function.

have you worked with R3 ports yet? they are very different from R2 
ports.

No, I don't have access to it.

I just figure I hadn't seen it mentioned of having this feaure.

rebdev was up. the client was too old. :-)

Good are you making the request?

I'm not sure how to describe it.

wait... perhaps it's better to use Curecode if you have an account.

Basically it is open/lines  but instead of separating lines from 
the stream it would separate the blocks.

So a block of blocks would be returned.

I don't know what curecode is.

Never heard of it before.

Curecode is the R3 bug database. It's public.

Oh, didn't know that.  Got a link?

http://curecode.org/rebol3/view-tickets.rsp

cool, I'll see what I can do in that regard.

Thanks Henrik.

NP. Please study the reports. I think there are many regarding ports.

Hmmm, it doesn't let me register.

Oh it took my name but gave me an error.

I actually would only request it for the speed.  I already have the 
produced the functionality but it obviously isn't native so I figured 
we could gain some speed.

hmm, not sure there is going to be any /lines etc. for read.

besides that - line feed is pretty common delimiter, whereas blocks 
are only REBOL facility. I think it belongs to higher level parsers 
(decoders)

some few weeks ago I posted here xy links about new ports, read vs 
load etc blogs, which sum those issues up ...

so no more /lines?

READ of file and http ports is binary, so no /lines.

The thing is that such facilities may be higher level now, to get 
more performance on the lower level. It's still possible to do, I 
think.

Other port schemes will differ. Steeve is working on a block port 
that looks really cool.

Oh I know it would be possible to do but at a cost in performance 
I would suppose.

Performance of ports is greater overall, so that is a tradeoff I 
am willing to make :)

Paul, please read those ones:

http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Port_Implementation
http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Ports
http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Port_Examples(a good one ....)
http://www.rebol.net/r3blogs/0127.html"Pruning down

Thank Pekr, will do.

The first one says that data buffer is binary or BLOCK.  Wonder what 
is meant by that.  (I'll continue reading).

Block ports return REBOL values, i.e. database ports in R2.