World: r3wp

same difference

first: it does not really matter for the graphics if the binary is 
compiled as console or gui app. keep that in mind

if, however, the binary is compiled as console app, a console will 
_always_ pop up (if if only for a very short blink).

so when you start view.exe by dropping a script which displays a 
rebol gui on it, you'll have a short blink of a win32 console before 
the rebol stuff launches. which is probably undesirable.

I don't understand the issue sufficiently. What I simply want is 
- messing with just one exe. Being able to either use it in SSH session, 
or from icon, including GUI :-) I know I tend to require too much 
:-)

way around this: compile view.exe as gui app :)

you can have that exe, but it'll blink

no blinks ... is MS so stupid to not allow that? Or is that behaviour 
identical to other platforms too?

nope, that's windows for you.

No secret switch for the console app to actually hide the console? 
:-)

if that switch exists, people spending way more time on this haven't 
found it :)

people within microsoft :)

This guy is somehow reusing dos console in GUI app, but maybe it 
is a different matter - it seems he is just redirecting the console 
to give it a GUI look? 
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/threads/consolepipe.aspx

read the comment timed "12:17 PM" below, that explains the situation 
clearly.

there's no 12:17

What about this?


It seems the problem goes away if I add on these two lines before 
ShowWindow(wcon, SW_HIDE)..
for(int i=0 ; !IsWindowVisible(wcon) 
&& i < 100 ; i++)
Sleep(10);

(ah sorry, fron post)

(wrong post!)

Pekr, unnamed modules stay unnamed, unless you load them by (word) 
name, not filename. They can occasionally have interesting unique 
properties.

OK, then it wasclearly my wrong guess :-) btw - how do you list unnamed 
modules in the module list then? or we don't? I thought that unnamed 
modules are auto-named according the file-name, but that would not 
be suficient anyway, as 1) one filename can contain multiple modules 
2) it still does not solve the case, when you create module e.g. 
in console manually ...

Pekr, Andreas is right. The problem is that the 'flag' if the app 
is of Console or GUI type is set at compile time. So when you execute 
file th Windows kernel just checks that flag and if set to 'Console' 
immediately creates console *before* the main() of your programm 
is called. So even if you put: ShowWindow(console, SW_HIDE); as the 
first command in your app you'll always see the console window for 
a while, which is not so nice ;)

OTOH if your app is of 'GUI' type and you execute it from CLI (for 
example cmd.exe console) the CLI automatically detaches your exe 
from the console so the cmd.exe propmpt is able accept next commands. 
This is also problem because even if you try to re-attach your GUI 
app back to the console from which it was started, the console is 
shared in paralel with the CLI process and your app. So in the best 
way you'll see two interleaved input lines...one fro rebol commands 
and one for DOS commands.

Unnamed modules (that stay unnamed) don't get listed in the module 
list. Instead, they get converted to private modules and get imported 
directly into the target context (system/contexts/user, or the context 
of the module that is requesting the import with its Needs header). 
Unlike regular private modules, if you import them again they aren't 
reused - you get a fresh module every time. This can be a useful 
property at times, so we kept it. We have done a great deal to make 
unnamed modules useful, and as a side effect even preferred in some 
cases.

Now Modules are here. A central repository is going to be created. 
Then GUI will be completed.

A question: what's next for REBOL ? Datatypes ? Will we go out of 
alpha then ?

tasking :-)

http://www.rebol.com/roadmap.html

There is still a lot of work haead. It will take 1 and half year...

Well, in last 3-4 month, look at the roadmap, and all those already 
completed things. Some VERY significant changes happened lately (host-kit, 
View transition to being fully external, modules, etc.)

You can always wait for the next release or until you have all dreamed 
on features. Whatevery product you use. It's about taking what you 
have and making the best from it.

in my opinion, R3 is already useable, apart from GUI, maybe pop, 
ftp, proxy support (nowadays I don't need it though), and ugly console 
:-)

Depends on your needs.

Actually what is stopping me from using REBOL3 is the lack of GUI 
and SQLite support but I have them in REBOL2 and I'll continue using 
it.

In REBOL3 I am only a spectator. I do not complain on the time it 
gets to be complete. I do not need the very last feature. I am passionate 
about the work you are doing on it. It is very hard.  It is nice 
to see you, genius, at work.

Finally implemented http://curecode.org/rebol3/ticket.rsp?id=637
thanks to a bugfix in alpha 108.

Congratulations

My dreamed feature is to have a release, instead of a not-for-distribution 
- which effectively doesn't exist

Please reconsider http://www.curecode.org/rebol3/ticket.rsp?id=1734.

Checking... I thought it was still open.

Added clarification. Changed bug status.

Thanks.

The question is what a script writer should do.

And I guess the answer is always using QUIT/now/return.

No, you don't want to do that.

The example script you gave is valid: for what you've written, I 
consider there to be a bug.

Can we have this particular bug fixed in A110 :) ?

I need a reliable way to QUIT with a return value from a script. 
But I do not know how this script is called.

Fixed in A110.

Great!

A friend of mine is asking about support for IPV6 addresses in REBOL 
3. he figured that REBOL 3 would have to support 128-bit numbers. 
I told him that there might be a separate datatype for it, but would 
it possible or would there a different way?

We can keep the addresses in strings, and the decoded addresses in 
binary data, and then make R3 support IPv6 without syntax changes 
(except to the URL parser). In theory.

my friend was interested in comparing address ranges, which was why 
he wanted to map them to 128-bit numbers.