World: r3wp

I solved it using 
either get a/1 [true][false]

Another way of ensuring that block contains what you think it contains:
   a: reduce [false]

this is typically a source of mistake ...  could be cool to take 
throw somewhere a note on this kind of misleading behavior

Yep, to see the reason:
>> a: [false]
== [false]
>> type? first a
== word!  <<-- it's a word not logic

>> a: reduce [false]
== [false]
>> type? first a
== logic!  << now it's ok

this mean the false isn the block isn't "interpreted" .. yeah the 
reduce need to convert it to what it is supposed to be  makes it 
clear ....

is it just for logic in a block or is it the same for anything ? 
like [1] or ["a"] or [1.2$]

>> type? a/1
== integer!

>> a: ["a"]  
== ["a"]

>> type? a/1 
== string!

>> a: [true] 
== [true]

>> type? a/1 
== word!

hum apparently only logic! are affected

it is like that for the intermadiate values (I don't know if it is 
the correct word in english..)

>> o: context [a: 1]
>> type? first [o]
== word!

cause o/1 =>>> context and context is a word no ?

no, first [o] returns 'o which is a word.

it is different for integer, string, decimal which are not words 
so they don't need to be REDUCED.

It's also same for datatype!. I forgot that words are not reduced 
in block.

Words also represent functions, libraries, and other things. So when 
you put those words in blocks, they're just words:

>> f: does []
>> type? first [f]
== word!


You can say, the words inside blocks are not looked up and not evaluated.

It is probably best to tell, that


[false] corresponds to [one] (provided one has been defined before 
to be one)

, while [#[false]] corresponds to [1]

Similarly, of course, [none!] corresponds to [one], while [#[datatype! 
none!]] corresponds to [1]

Related to the discussion in Core, the rules around making functions 
have changed in R3. Function bodies are not copied any longer:

>> b: []
== []
>> f: make function! reduce [[] b]
>> f
>> insert b 42
== []
>> f
== 42


As I understand it, one reason is to be able to change the functions, 
after they've been made. Why isn't it good enough to manipulate the 
body block before making the function?

Because the body block is affected by the fact, that the function 
was made (binding).

As I side note, I don't fully understand the argument, as you can 
change function in R2 too, after they've made. Do that by change 
the body block, which can be made available using SECOND :function 
(doesn't work in R3 though).

you can change function in R2 too

 - sure, but that is based on a property of another function, which 
 is not desirable

As I see it, the rule should be, that either you wish the function 
you create to be modified/modifiable and then you should use the 
property of the MAKE function, or you don't wish that, and in that 
case other functions should not help to do it.

I understand.

OK what do we have to do to put an end to this masquerade ???

do we have to buy rebol source code from carl like it was done from 
neogeo by blender ? if that the case I'm ready to give to taht purpose 
one moth of salary in full this is how commited I am to rebol cause 

I like rebol I always liked it and will always like it ... I'm just 
extermely sad that we can't organise a proper stuff to make rebol 
the gran scripting language it deserves to be 

We lack comitement we lack seriousnes and sorry to tell you this 
but rebol shouldn't be our hobby it should be our reason to very 
live 

You guys should be ashamed to see so much people leaving this community 
and instead of smugging them and ignoring them YOU (yeah you !  don't 
force me to call you by your name !) should be an offering  force 
to create main project AND WORK WITH THE OTHERS to make rebol something 
noticeable not just something to fill your spare time !

you shoudl be ashamed of this ... common are you so blind that you 
see rebol being abandonned and deserted more and more  RMA is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar 
zillion light years of being as community moving as RebGUI and the 
main reason is that by abandoning REbGUI you slaped us in our faces 
and know what we don't like that we don't like the gurus selected 
fews we don't like RMA we don't like what rebol has become and the 
one more hating is is carl sassenrath  himself  we forced his hand 
to give us more  freedom and more action on rebol and WE WASTED IT 
purely and simply 


Then all we ever standed for is futile and void ... and what I see 
here is stupid comments about a dead product that it's main own and 
only author abandoned .

Instead of giving bucktracks that will never been read or take in 
considaration please the remaining of you the rebol community TAKE 
ACTION !!!

If you hate me if you dispise me then this is your chance to prouve 
me wrong and make miserable ! cause hey the mniserable ones til now 
are you the stupid tens thousand bugs founders that will never find 
a solution cause the main guy to  implement those fixe is gone since 
november 2010

focus on one and single project do what RMA wasn't able to do ... 
and if to acheive that you have to make cyphre Robert and the other 
RMA members myserable just do it ! do a freaking r3gui that can hold 
a candle to was rebGUI was and is ! so far you are just fucking sploiled 
child and I hate you  sooooooooooo much .  you were given everything 
I never had, the fame the confidence the spot light  the ears of 
each and everyone and what you do out of that  ????!!!  nothing ! 
 you let carl to totally toy you !

telling you you are spineless would be un insult to unvertebrated 
kind ...

any other people with un inch of  pride would have  in front of such 
a move reacted 1000 times folds  you waht you do is summing the stupid 
talks and not take any concrete action !

rebol is dead ...  it's dead since the rebol 3 project was started 
in 2004 just after AGG was integrated to vid and just after rebservice 
and rebcode were alpha done

now you will continue to do what you have always done ... submiting 
stuff that noones cares about it just to feel the blanks of your 
existence ... this is one thing that not even carl wants to participate 
in ... so face it ... and stop you  are ridiculous can you give me 
since january 2010 one noticeable thing that is worst mentioning 
?

Why don't you do it yourself? Your fame is there for the taking

Dear shadwolf, please, notice that we have a special channel for 
frustration... it's called ~Vent. Use it. By the way, we already 
know that you "hate us soooooooooo much". And if REBOL is dead, let 
it RIP. And find a living toy elsewhere. Or at least ... use the 
~Vent if you are so addicted to be here.

I think, he's outta here, maybe for good.

How can I get a list of all R3 words that are available directly 
after the interpreter booted as input for creating a color coding 
file.

BrianH or others could say for sure. You could start with [words-of 
system/catalog] and drill down into datatypes, actions, etc. from 
there.

`words-of lib` is a good start.

Only 2 months for R3 to be in limbo for one year :-( Still no sign 
of Carl's more active involvement?

We should hold awake

I agree with Andreas: words-of lib is the best start for a syntax 
highlighter.

Is rebol a going concern or not?  I don't want to take the time to 
learn a dead language.

it's probably a good idea for you to wait a couple of years and see 
where it is at that time.

Well, we've waited four years so far from the initial announcement 
and timescale:
   http://www.rebol.org/aga-display-posts.r?post=r3wp500x332

Rebol is a 100 year language like Arc :)

Well said, Graham, even if you were trying to be funny.

REBOL is far from a dead language. REBOL 2 is being used as heavliy 
as ever, see Qtask.com, Synapse-EHR & Cheyenne-Server.org. Three 
dialects of REBOL, namely boron, RED & Topaz, have evolved from REBOL. 
Each offers something different - a fast cut-down evaluator, a native 
code compiled  language and a JavaScript compiler. They are all a 
different stages of their development.

The core of REBOL3 appears sufficiently stable for a lot of work 
being put into developing a REBOL3 GUI.

the 100 year old language means that the developer is prepared to 
take as long as it is necessary to get it right .. I think Paul Graham 
has mentioned the 100 years in relation to his development of Arc

I read that essay a long time ago. I thought he meant that he wanted 
to develop a language that would still be relevant 100 years from 
now -- not take 100 years to develop it.

Yes I think the implication is that as well ....

Languages don't die, but become irrelevant. You are free to use ALGOL 
for your projects, but there are probably other languages better 
for the task, so ALGOL is not so relevant anymore. I don't see REBOL 
becoming irrelevant any time soon.