World: r3wp

Unless you want no evaluation at all, not just for words, then use 
a get-word parameter. Yes, that's an awkward way to refer to it - 
it's already been reported.

In R2 I could write: in object 'self, but no longer in R3. What's 
the equivalent in R3?

 - I do not understand all that "harakiri" going on in R3 with 'self. 
 Nevertheless, the expression:
    first bind [self] object
works

Self is still there but within its own context which is the way it 
should be.

Nevertheless, I think, that the fact, that
    first bind [self] object]
works, while
    in object 'self
does not, is at least surprising. What is that good for?

Probably to do with the new changes allowing us to protect object 
code.

Inconsistent

what is? - be more specific.

See above

Again, it may have to do with protection features.

No, as long as one of the above expression works, while the other 
does not

I don't know how you can say "NO" Ladislav.

just easy: the functions are equivalent for me - I do not mind whether 
I use the former or the latter. If one of them works, while the other 
does not, it is inconsistent, and not protecting

Protect feature is still evolving at last check so I don't see how 
you can say it isn't part of that direction.

well, "part of that direction" - maybe, just not working in this 
case, as demonstrated

Then CureCode it, and maybe Carl will answer that one :-)

Brian, if "Returns TRUE if the values are equal and of the same datatype 
& case." is OK, but "Returns TRUE if the values are equal and of 
the same datatype and case." is not, that's where I think uor priorities 
are out of order. 


Maybe the first thing we should do is write a clear goal for doc 
strings. What is their main purpose and what constraints should be 
placed on them for each purpose (or maybe I just haven't seen the 
doc that does this)? For example, are they be limited for console 
output only when listed with other funcs, or also when used with 
HELP individually? Should ? be short help and ??? link to a detailed 
help page for funcs? If console group list is the constraining factor, 
can it truncate and ellipsize longer strings?

Is there a difference between an object! or context! Any rules wheren 
to use one or the other? I use contexts more likea "class"(data, 
functions) and objects mor like blocks.

I think that modules are the way to go, but than why we have context! 
and object! ?

wait... there is not context! datatype...

Hmm... true. So CONTEXT seems to be just a short-cut.

How about an unblock function? This would help in cases like:

reduce [words-of my-object]
== [[my-words...]]

reduce [unblock words-of my-object]
== [mywords ...]

Your unblock returns a series of words. You need to have them in 
a series (a block). You can do these:

first reduce [words-of my-object]
or simple
words-of my-object

I can't see, an unblock would be possible.

word-of returns a block

yes

So
unblock words-of ....
should return what?

Remember every function and operator in REBOL returns exactly one 
return value. Some would argue, PRINT doesn't, but it returns a value 
of the unset! datatype. If you need to return many words, you have 
to put them in one return value, like a block.

>> type? print "Hello, World!"
Hello, World!
== unset!

Example: I want to get

["some string" word1 word2 word3]

If I write:


reduce ["some string" words-of ...] will return: ["some string" [word1 
word2 word3]]

So I need to get rid of the 2nd block.

You can get that by:

reduce ["some string" first worlds-of ...]

sorry

haha, late here. Let me think.

Try this:

join ["some string"] words-of ...

I see, what you want, but you can't do that in REBOL, because a function 
can't return more than one value.

Yep, used the JOIN as well. But thought it's a generic pattern.

Has 'compose been removed or changed in R3?
compose [ "some string" (words-of ...) ]
== [ "some string" word1 word2 word3 ]

COMPOSE is in R3, and it's a way to get the desired result.

You can also use a function like this:

flatten: func [block /local result] [
	result: clear []
	forall block [
		append result either block! = type? block/1 [
			to paren! block/1
		][
			block/1
		]
	]
	result
]

>> flatten [1 [a 2] 3]
== [1 a 2 3]


Can only flatten one level. If you have blocks within blocks within 
blocks, you need another loop or make it recursive.

Any reason why dates can't be determined by the system preferences 
so that  1/12/2010 is 12-Jan-2010 ?

I don't see a techinal reason. It could be implemented, but will 
slow date recognision down a little bit. I've considered sort of 
the same for thousand separators, so these could be recognized:

1.200,00
1,200.00

But will slow scanner a little bit and make code more complex.

*technical*

Why is REBOL3/Docs Recent changes subpage protected by password? 
This page is essential to me, as well as recent changes page on wiki. 
This is the only way to find out, if there is something new happening 
...

Graham, about the date thing. It's also a potential problem, if you 
forget to set the system prefs back and then run some script. Your 
dates would suddently behave strangely.

most people don't change their date preferenes

:-)

Let's say, you did change you date pref once. Then a month later 
you read some data with some dates. Now, what format would you guess, 
those dates were in?

slow down date recognition a little ... I don't think so.  It could 
be vectored on rebol start up.

Hm, maybe we don't talk about the same here? I understood you, as 
all dates should be recognized MM/DD/YYYY, if you so choose?

Or, you could set the date preference as the top of the script

You should be able to also set the date window ...