World: r3wp

A Linux shared lib would do. But no download has been announced, 
even privately.

Has anyone considered doing an extension for LibHaru? This could 
be useful.

http://libharu.sourceforge.net/

there's already a rebol library for this

rebol2

Found it... but it would be nice with an R3 version.

RebHaru looks fair, but it could use a dialect

See PDF group on RebHaru

Carl just made an internal test release of A111.

Carl has a post to his rebol.net  "R3 FrontLine"  blog about looking 
for GitHub code submissions ... says only sees those of Oldes ... 
no comments to that post ...

-> blog chat

It seems that copy/deep doesn't work on map! Is it known problem?

I'm experimenting to determine the exact syntax of words in R3, and 
see whether there are any undiscovered bugs. Just sticking to ASCII 
for now - due to http://issue.cc/r3/1230- but things look promising 
so far. I'll convert the results to PARSE rules.

Found two bugs so far and one undocumented issue (or possible bug).

And an expansion of another bug (http://issue.cc/r3/1478).

Put the parse rules in a comment here: http://issue.cc/r3/1302

Nice work

I'm hoping to get a grammar for the whole language. We would then 
be able to convert it to various syntax highlighting engines, analysis 
tools, whatever. Figuring out the R2 syntax will take some different 
tricks though, as it doesn't have TRANSCODE and proper binary handling. 
I eventually hope to be able to write a TRANSCODE for R3 and R2 in 
REBOL source form, for documentation and analysis purposes.

There is a bug in R3, which will be very difficult to find... I was 
parsing very large XML files and have got invalid chars in the result. 
I cannot reproduce it unfortunatelly.

That sounds both very worrying and a challenge - how big were the 
XML files? Were they utf-8 encoded? Did you verify the utf-8 encoding 
in the XML or could it have contained invalid utf-8 sequences?

If you can give a few hints, I'll see if I can reproduce the bug.

For that matter, were you parsing them as string or binary data? 
If binary, were you using string constants?

It will not be easy as I do other operations as well.. like image 
resizing using extensions etc.. but it's strange... parsing as string.

Might be memory corruption then.

hm.. I can reproduce it... and it must be GC related, because when 
I set recycle/off, the result is correct

But it's possible, that it's my extension which is the reason.. I 
guess. How much safe is creation binaries from C level and passing 
them to REBOL?

Hm... now I 've got System Error #1301: invalid datatype 176

with recycle/off it's fine... it must be related to my extensions.

sounds like a memory corruption problem

Creating and returning binaries is supposed to be safe if you do 
it in one go

Is there any place in your extension where you create more than one 
series in one command?

Is there any place in your extension where series are passed between 
commands and are supposed to survive between calls?

The act of processing large data may very well trigger such a vulnerability, 
because otherwise no garbage collection would happen to be done

Is this a known bug?

>> 2**3
** Syntax error: invalid "integer" -- "2**3"
** Near: (line 1) 2**3

Is this a known bug?

>> 2**3
** Syntax error: invalid "integer" -- "2**3"
** Near: (line 1) 2**3

Robert - spaces?

2**3 vs 2  ** 3?

:-)

Ah... ;-) To much c-coding. And there I don't use spaces that much.

REBOL3 A111 release coming - http://www.rebol.com/r3/changes.html

A111 binary downloads now available for Win32, Linux, OSX:
http://www.rebol.com/r3/downloads.html

(Along with a new Linux binary variant, 4.4, "libc6-2-11-x86".)

a very important point is that this version (exe + dll from Carl) 
is compatible with the RMA R3-gui

what does it mean, compatible, though?

presumably runs the gui

according to Carl :

The most current graphics library changes have been included. Many 
thanks to Cyphre and the RMA project.
Beforehand, it was better to use the RMA compiled host-kit
I also have seen that some bugs disappeared.

Is there a reason for R3's GET being more permissive that R2's?
All these return the value in R3.....In R2 they cause errors:
   get string!
   get :binary!
   get []
   get "xxx"

It seems to extend to all other types as well. It looks intentional.

Carl asks:


this week tried building libr3.so on PPC ... but there is a problem, 
the compiler is too old.

I tried updating gcc, but all the apt-get 
links are too old, and  it failed.   I'm looking for a ppc compiler 
>= 3.4, if you know where one is archived.

osx ppc?

apt-get sounds more like linux ppc.