World: r3wp

True ... but still there's a bug in find/part

Isn't there some new way to return true from parse without the "to 
end" now?

(break/return true) but i don't know if it's faster

Yeah .. that's what I was thinking of

but you must have a loop

>> loop 1 [parse msg [generator " OK" (break/return true)]]

compose [ (generator)  ...

with a sub-rule...
>> match: [(break/return true)]
>> loop 1 [parse msg [generator " OK" match]]

why the parens in your sub rule?

because break is not a part of the parse dialect.
It's a regular function

ahh... not thinking

just looking ... break does appear in the new parse dialect

but not break/return

And in the R2 parse dialect, but the meaning in both cases is different 
from the function.

brianh, what's causing the find/part error?

parse documentation is very skimpy .. .need lots of new examples

There are more than a few FIND bugs. Check CureCode to see if yours 
is covered already.

graham, can't you just use the return keyword in R3 parse?

PARSE documentation is actually pretty extensive, but not yet organized. 
There was a lot of thorough research conducted during the parse project 
and revamp. It just hasn';t been put into the docs yet.

it's not there in curecode

but it's more subtle ... as it works outside the function

(reworking on ftp scheme currently )

going to implement ftp site to site transfer ?  :)

yup, i need it for PC to AS400 file's exchanges

So, I have some bugs in my scheme?

and remote commands too

well, missing lot of commands :)

oh yeah ...minimal functionality ... for someone else to finish ;)

cwd: func [ mbox [port!] dir [string!]][
	if in mbox/scheme/actor 'cwd [
		mbox/scheme/actor/cwd dir
	]
]

which is what I have in my imap scheme ... could use similar for 
ftp

actor: [
	cwd: funct [ dir [string!]][
			write mbox compose [ SELECT (dir) ]
			read mbox
		]
]

i'm doing differently currently, i only use WRITE to pass block of 
commands to parse

so the user still has low level access to the scheme or not?

don't know what u mean exactly, so i would say... maybe

the user can still use the port in what carl calls mixed mode ...

OPEN, WRITE and CLOSE will be the only one usefull actors in my scheme

I think mine allows file upload resume by sening a APPE command with 
the rest of the file

but rather than handling it directly ... you can just write the command 
to the port

a session will be something like:
>> session: open ftp://ftp.site.com
>> write session [
	USER "toto"
	PASS "****"
	PASV
	BINARY
	CD /dir-temp
	GET %thif-file
]
>> close session

ok, looking forward to seeing it ...

and i will use a dialect to construct the state diagrams

for example, the state diagram used to open a ftp session looks like 
this currently.

USER
<< ( 
	(1 2) error
	(4 5) fail
	3 >> PASS << ( 
		2		success
		1		error
		(4 5)	fail
		3 >> ACCT << (
				2   	success
				(1 3) 	error
				4 5 	fail
		)
	)
)

it's a dialect

Nice ...  I'm looking for a dialected flow control GUI tool too :)

This one, to rename a file:

RNFR ;** rename a file.
<< (
	(1 2) error
	(4 5) fail
	3 (
		>> RTNO
		<< (
			2	success
			(1 3)	error
			(4 5)	fail
		)
	)
)

I'm wondering how to interface with Amazon's simple DB.

Both Maarten and I passed the secret and access keys as parameters 
to the various functions, but I think I'd rather have a system/user 
object to store them and use them from there.

So, can we have an extensible system/user object that we can store 
user related data for use in schemes etc ?

system/contexts/user is user-specific, and schemes can store their 
data in their modules if they like.

I don't think we're going to get back system/user - all global options 
are going under system/options, including options about users.

You need to make sure that your data is task-safe too, so changeable 
global options are usually bad unless they are changed through a 
function that synchronizes access. system/contexts/user is task-specific.