World: r3wp

I get different results
>> benchmark [context [a: 1 b: "xyz" c: 3 d: a * c]]
== 0:00:01.455
>> benchmark [use [a b c d] [a: 1 b: "xyz" c: 3 d: a * c]]
== 0:00:03.753

strange..
>>  benchmark [context [a: 1 b: "xyz" c: 3 d: a * c]]
== 0:00:01.468
>> benchmark [context [a: 1 b: "xyz" c: 3 d: a * c]]
== 0:00:01.469
>> benchmark [context [a: 1 b: "xyz" c: 3 d: a * c]]
== 0:00:01.469
>> benchmark [context [a: 1 b: "xyz" c: 3 d: a * c]]
== 0:00:01.5
>> benchmark [use [a b c d] [a: 1 b: "xyz" c: 3 d: a * c]]
== 0:00:01.093
>> benchmark [use [a b c d] [a: 1 b: "xyz" c: 3 d: a * c]]
== 0:00:01.094
>> benchmark [use [a b c d] [a: 1 b: "xyz" c: 3 d: a * c]]
== 0:00:01.094
>> benchmark [use [a b c d] [a: 1 b: "xyz" c: 3 d: a * c]]
== 0:00:01.094

@sqlab: try to bigger value.

>> benchmark [context [a: 1 b: "xyzdddddddd" c: 3 d: a * c]]
== 0:00:14.423


>> benchmark [use [a b c d] [a: 1 b: "xyzdddddddd" c: 3 d: a * c]]
== 0:00:37.302

very strange.. I guess it's because of OS, hardware etc.
>> benchmark [context [a: 1 b: "xyz" c: 3 d: a * c]]
== 0:00:15.048
>> benchmark [use [a b c d] [a: 1 b: "xyz" c: 3 d: a * c]]
== 0:00:11.11
for 10.000.000 times.

Endo, the thing is much simpler than that. I bet, that you are using 
R2

ofcourse :)

then, read the name of this group

That explains it.

oh, yes, sorry, I just wanted to reply Grahams question..

so, use and context are really different in R3.

USE is a wrapper around a closure!. CONTEXT creates an object. Very 
different.

USE is mezzanine in R3 - source it.

Sure, I would think that USE would be faster than CONTEXT (as in 
R2) but it is not.

USE is just a helper function in R3. We use modules as the primary 
structuring model now.

Or objects.

Now if you created the closure yourself ahead of time, instead of 
creating a new closure every time (as USE does) then it would be 
faster.

Can you show how?

blah: closure [a b c d] [a: 1 b: "xyzdddddddd" c: 3 d: a * c]
benchmark [apply :blah []]

HTML of new R3 doc pages has similar problems on most pages due to 
no urlencode of ampersand in urls and invald <th> declarations using 
old <tr> attrib values for vertical-align in a <th> element.  I would 
gladly fix ad hoc and you can fix your page gen tools (?) later

test: 42 ;  test:none  ;  comment { test remains 42 but no error 
unlike, say, simple undefined  testnone   That missing space looks 
nasty when test:none should have been    test: none           Is 
this a bug in R3?    test:none does not return none but instead returns 
  test:none

>> test: 42
== 42
>> test:none
== test:none
>> testnone
** Script error: testnone has no value

that's a bug:
>> test:none: 1
== 1

>> test:none
== test:none

And it's bug in R2 as well.

I don't think it is a bug, test:none: is a url.
>> test:none: print "x"
== x

if it would a set-word then it should give an error like "test:none 
needs a value"
x: print "a"; == x needs a value
>> ? test:none:
== test:none: is an url

probably you are right.. maybe it's for cases like>  mailto:[carl-:-rebol-:-xxx] 
 <not very useful imho :)

a tolerated bug in R2 becomes a revered feature in R3, no?   If that 
is not a bug, then I may be the pope.  Or is it "the caprice of the 
colon", otherwise known as 'the big C" ?  You must excuse me, Jon 
Stwarrt just explained that science is faith and I am still in awe.

Single colon urls, can use it for:

Machine tags - one:two=three
For taguris - tag:example.com,2006:Fluffy 
Database - db:movies
Placeholders - go:here

And mailto: ... which can have it's merits, eg. - mt: find "mailto:" 
load/next mt (not for spam)


All of which you can write mini port handlers for, should you have 
the need...

RobertS, it's not a bug even in R2.

has find/all been discussed in relation to R3?  I think its a huge 
gap in REBOL.   maybe there's another function for this, but I'd 
rather have it "close to the source".

R3 A102 released internally. (Have no other info yet)

http://www.rebol.com/r3/changes.html

http://www.rebol.com/r3/downloads/r3-host-kit-a102.zip

No support for structures yet?

No conversion functions yet, if that is what you mean. No struct! 
type as well, but that was a given. You can pass pointers to structures 
around as the handle! type, structure data in the binary! type, and 
convert using extension functions, or even REBOL code for binary! 
data.

If you want a great set of conversion functions start writing them, 
and get others involved for the advice and help. You might consider 
starting with the conversion blog here: http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/r3blog.r?view=0317#comments

If conversion functions aren't done by the time I finish the module 
system revamp, and I have the time, I'll try implementing the model 
suggested in the comments of that blog. Not the struct! type though, 
that would be terrible for conversions.

A quick poll .. who is actually working on end user projects using 
R3 now??

Or, if that is too much to expect .. who is actually using R3 for 
anything??

And if you're not .. what is the thing that is blocking you the most 
from using R3 ?

GUI, console (not willing to experiment that much with the Windows 
default one), call, protocols (ftp, email, easy-cgi), DB (mysql, 
sqlite)

Well, of those, I think I only see 'call and 'gui as blocking ... 
as the others are either usable in some sort of fashion

we have suffix? ... so why not root? ( or whatever? )

root?: func [ f  ][
    copy/part f (length? f) - length? suffix? f
]

The big biggest block to me using R3 is CureCode Bug #1361.

incomplete error trapping?

Yes. It is blocking on two levels; first repeatable tests abort, 
secondly live applications cannot be fully protected.

We are going to do our next commercial project with R3. I bite the 
bullet and wie will create everything we need on the fly.

GUI: This will result in a bunch of styles we need.

DB: Either we use SQLApi+ or OpenDBX to get access to a bunch of 
databases through the same interface.

Did you create a sqlite3 binding for R3 ?

Yes, I need to review it but overall it works.