World: r3wp

I've got this unexpected R3 behaviour (it's the core of the LDS issue 
mentioned in [Testing and Tools]

    f: func [] [error? try [return 1] return 2]
    f
    == 2   ;; r3 does this....despite no error
    == 1   ;; r2 does this...as expected

Any ideas, thanks!

Yes, this is CC #771

Carl intents to correct it, but it will not be in A108

Now you have to circumvent it, at the cost of having longer code. 
I suppose, that the not simplified code is more like:


f: func [] [error? try [do-something return 1] return 2], which can 
be transformed to:

f: func [] [return either error? try [do-something] [1] [2]]

Thanks...Glad to know there are work-arounds.

Sure, this is not that hard to circumvent, but it comes at the cost 
of needing to "reorganize" the code

Does R3 somewhere have the equivalent of
   READ/CUSTOM .... [POST...]
yet?
I'd like to read a URL as a POST rather than a GET.

Yes it does

looks like Carl will not only be attending Amiwest, but exhibiting 
as well.

Thanks Graham....Now, can I have a clue what the equivalent is!?

Henrik - what is he going to exhibit? R3 on Amiga? Or R3 in general?

Don't know. He is just listed as an exhibitor. Maybe he'll bring 
wine. :-)

I think he'll try to peddle is "rare" Amiga items...   ;-)

result: write http://yourhost.com/cgi-bin/myscript.cgi{Posted data}

See http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Scheme:_HTTP

Thanks Graham.
Initially, that sounds lllogical -- doing a write to read a URL.

But I guess it makes sense -- as POST is supposed to cause an update 
action of some sort at the server end.

I'm not sure of the logic .. I would think that 'write should be 
used for non idempotent actions but that's not how it is done.

Anyway, 'read is a straight 'GET and write allows custom headers

I always thought HTTP GET is incredibly anti-intuitive when used 
to send form data. Mapping write to POST feels a lot more logical

I haven't looked to see how it handles PUT, and DELETE with parameters

now whether PUT can stream a file off the filesystem

now => nor

That was a heck of a coding and debugging session we just got through. 
Alpha 108 is going to be really cool :)

have a lot of things changed wrt the host-kit structure and its files?

I don't know about that yet, I just worked on core builds. Afaik 
there are no major changes to the host kit APIs in this release. 
Only major system structure and semantic changes in R3 itself. And 
a new module system with all sorts of fun tricks available. And some 
fun minor changes to some natives and mezzanines, plus some major 
changes to a few other mezzanines.

I really would like to have some feedback from Carl about the Host-lib 
suggestions I did in R3 chat.

What are the registered filetypes in the more recent builds? What 
is the consequence of a file type being registered? Is there any 
documentation?

I don't think the A108 R3 installs yet.

I use .r3 for REBOL3 scripts and .r for R2.

Let's hope we get an A108 hostkit at all ...

I think, that the majority of REBOL scripts are .r and they work 
in both R2 as well as in R3

If someone close to Carl could ask him to release A108 as both binary 
and hostkit, that would be much appreciated.

That is the plan, Andreas.

But we are doing a core release first, to let people hammer on it 
to make sure the system changes work. Then we will likely release 
a host kit, or one for the a109 release.

(drumroll...)

OK, so it's not the plan, just a binary release.

...first. Your concerns (and those of others) have been noted and 
passed along. But the plan will be set based on the stability of 
the core release.

What good reason is there for not doing hostkit releases side-by-side 
with the binary releases?

When the release focusses on host kit changes, that makes sense. 
This release completely revamps the R3 internal structure. It might 
not work at all, let alone work in a host kit.

Which is a pity.

Namely, that Carl still seems to use tons of different codebases 
for the different releases.

Why is it a pity that we would want to isolate testing to that which 
changed?

For experimental releases especially.

If nothing changed in the hostkit, then an updated hostkit release 
is mostly a matter of bundling updated r3 core libs.

So the isolation argument is moot.

On the contrary, there are bugs in CC which seem to only occur with 
binaries built from the hostkit. So you have a wider base of testing.

Updated R3 core libs which *may not work*. Once we are sure that 
the core works, we can adapt the hostkit to match. For that matter, 
we made changes that might break existing extensions (I think they 
won't).

If the RT binaries were built from the same sources, that would not 
be possible.

They are.

Then the scenario you describe is not possible.

Either the hostkit is already adapted for the RT built to work.