World: r3wp

Or it should be an refinement to DO?

do/on-error


But then it's a question, if TRY should be there in the first place.

*a* refinement

Carl, there is also an issue with waiting more than 597 hours in 
R2. It can be read about in the Core group. Not yet reported to RAMBO. 
I wonder if you could at least comment on it?

try/else

H: link?

WAIT issue link:
  http://www.rebol.org/aga-display-posts.r?post=r3wp157x16010

Carl, nine posts back in the Core group.

DocKimbel posting.

I see, TRY already has a refinement called /except.

oops, sunanda provides the right link, sorry.

G: no way... ah!

Works too. Great, check that one off. ;)

Docs updated.

handle: :try/except

would be cool, but maybe that's taking refinements too far. :-)

That worked at some point.

What's the quickest way to detect R3 vs R2 for hybrid scripts?

system/version/2 = 100 ?

How about allowing: clear object!


This could set all object! words to none. Would be a nice way to 
reset an object! into a clean state.

We aleady have it
>> set my-object none

Ah, cool. But it's not very obvious from the wording. IMO clear would 
be nice.

don't waste our time, do a mezz if you prefer ;-)

using clear would imply that an object is a series.

Carl is here maybe he can comment on the previous discussion regarding 
chaining.

eh ? where is that discussion ?

That was this one:

>> a: construct [b: c: 2]
== make object! [
    b: 2
    c: 2
]

On how to keep the 'b from being assigned the 2

So that it could actually be:

==make object! [
b: none
c: 2
]

Just so that we can do some dynamic building of blocks with set-words 
and pass it to construct and not worry about a set-word getting assigned 
a value from the chain.

you want optional assignement ?

yes, maybe a refinement that allows me to suppress the chaining for 
constructs

Paul, just iterate through the block before you construct it and 
whenever a set-word! is followed by another set-word! insert a none 
in between.

Yeah I could do that Anreas, just like most functions we can usually 
do some prework but thought it would offer something a bit safer 
built-in.

Write such a function and offer it to be included as mezzanine.

Any chance we can promote a feature of REBOL that looks more secure 
or performance oriented out of the box is a marketing plus in my 
opinion.

I could Andreas but thought it would be more bloat than a refinement 
would incurr.

Any refinement you are thinking of would need to to exactly that.

The bloat would be hidden behind the refinement...

Which I would assume would be less than me roleing it from the top

Paul, if you need it, just write it.

I could give that answer to 90 percent of the things we ask for in 
R3.  ;-)

So often I think that mezzanines are not the answer sometimes to 
what could just be added as a refinement to an existing function. 
 Don't like to do that much to functions that are often invoked in 
looping or iteration routines.

Paul, what's the advantage behind what you need? The way constructs 
are written now is standard REBOL syntax.

currently constructs will perform the chain assignment.

It only looks like "chain assignment", it's really nothing special.

Well we love chain assignment - when we want it.  Don't like it when 
we don't want it.

when don't we want it?

What cases do you have?

Paul, what you are saying is "we love passing arguments to function 
calls - when we want it. Don't like it when we don't want it."

No Andreas, this is not passing about the passing of the arguments 
but the handling of the arguments.

The same argumet can be passed but it is how it is handled.