World: r3wp

Now back to basic documentation ...  have you allocated any spare 
cycles to this?

G: yes... and more than spare cycles. But, the list is long.

note to self .. update rebolweek to say that Carl is restoring the 
1998 r1 console to R3alpha ....

Not r1. R2!

schemes would be a nice place to start .... we need to get smtp, 
and pop done.

G, that's what you just requested, wasn't it?

Ok, r2 then .. but that wasn't 1998.

true.

M: ran into holiday schedule on OS X libs.

Graham, perfect for a third party to do (and has been for about a 
year).

Bingo. Keep in mind that Gab wrote HTTP based on those wiki docs 
for scheme.

I stopped working on my C compiler during the holidays... I actually 
took real vacations this year.

And we're not Gabriele ...

Gab succeeded, but came up with a few questions on buffering.

Who's not Gabriele?

No one has written any more schemes since 2007 ... the logical conclusion 
is that the docs are lacking :)

Or, we are all lazy buggers

Ok... well... here's the plan on that.

I need to move them into the R3 docs... so I'll polish them up during 
that.

Throw in a few example schemes like finger or whois.

So mean Graham, i wrote the virtual-block scheme but it"s not a protocol

Yes, some sample simple network schemes

We will need FTP. That is going to be a pain, but someone has to 
do it.

Well, as Newton said .. got to start somewhere

Sterling Newton said that?

Man, I miss that guy.

No,  Isaac Newton

I think he phrased it .. something about standing on the shoulders 
of giants or something

Anyway, I agree with this as a priority because it allows greater 
concurrent contribution to R3 base code.

Great ... look forward to seeing something soon.

Henrik .. are you offering to do the ftp protocol?

Graham, no.

Carl, what the scheme system/schemes/console is used for ?

hmm... i think i got it

Is that if i map a port at system/ports/output, I can redirect all 
the output (print, probe etc...) ?

If you're working with a line oriented protcol .. do you save the 
buffer to your own buffer and work on it line by line ( deline ) 
?

Or is it enline

I don't agree on console not greatly ruining the R3 experience. R3 
sucks big way because of it. for me it degrades my experience by 
some 20-30%. Not being reboller, I would trash it. Python has own 
console too IIRC.

that "ppl can do it themselves" is rather silly. We are at it once 
again.

We never learn, and I write documents for nothing :-)

Pekr, just say "I agree with Graham"

Thank you for your cooperation.

I f*cking agree with Graham :-)

There's many ppl out there, who will want to try REBOL as a tool, 
and have ABSOLUTLY NO intention into coding some infrastructure things 
themselves. So - we can say such things as "do it yourself" in a 
community cooperative manner here, but let's not dare to present 
such opinions publicly ...

the do it yourself, is not meant for the end user, but for contributors... 
I thought that was obvious.

I hope it is obvious too ... but it surely was not obvious in R2 
days. We claimed being a glue, yet the only option to interface REBOL 
was sockets/files (free versions)

This is not a criticue, this is a raised eyebrow ... I think that 
we are on very good route - Extensions + Host ... and we will surely 
get there.

I guess there needs to be a formal limit to what RT does and what 
community should do. It can't be expected that RT would maintain 
console support on an obscure OS. OTOH you might expect HTTP to work 
as a result of RT work or someone close to RT.

Hasn't this been demarcated already?

Don't think there is anything but a task list.