World: r3wp

You can convert anything to email.

I was going crazy trying to send to a long list getting errors...finally 
found the faulty address...how do you validate email then?

You should write your own parse rule, it should be failry simple. 
Probably there's already something on http://www.rebol.org

Amacleod - there was a discussion on ML or elsewhere, about how useless 
email dtype is, if it can't work as email RFC suggests. I was told, 
that I should not mistake datatype, with complicated parser for possible 
correct emails. I still insist - the datatype is useless that way. 
I found some grammar, I even posted it back at that time, but I think 
that someone at RT was simply too lazy to implement it :-)

the email datatype is not useful for different reasons: it can't 
be serialized properly.

either write your own parser ... or use my smtp challenge :)

What would you expect here?

>> ?? test3: now
test3:
== 28-Oct-2010/17:28:36+13:00
>> ?? test3

none

or unset

why?

?? prints test 3 and now is returned evaluated after so its printed 
by the console

so where is the output of ?? test3:

ahh... on the first line

>> ?? test3: now
test3:   <<------ here
== 28-Oct-2010/17:28:36+13:00

its a common error I make ever so often in code.

because ?? is a lit-word argument.

(uses)

it grabs 'test3: directly, so it never gets evaluated (so it doesn't 
assign the following value)

this is true of all lit-word arguments and is probably why we don't 
use them often, they brake the visible chain of command.

I should just inline 'probe

yep.. usually a better alternative... and put a prin "test3: " on 
the previous line.

(previous line is for scripts, obviously makes no sense for the command 
line hehehe)

I generally only use ? and ?? for words when I want to know the type 
as well, and because of that very issue I started using this:
probe: func [D][
    print join join type? D "!  " mold :D
    D
]

It's in my primary include file.  Helps with 'none versus none!, 
etc...

the only thing is the loss of the variable name, but using lit-word 
argument breaks the entire reason for using this, so... eh.  It'd 
be very nice to have some sort of in-between

I have redefine my probe so it uses mold/all instead... it also only 
dumps the first 500 chars when I try to probe something which is 
way to big (like a nested set of faces)

what's the word to remove one series from another?

someop [ 1 1 2 3 4 ] [ 1 ] 
== [ 1 2 3 4 ]

exclude

oh .. it's alter

but it will add them if they're not there.

that's okay ... I need to remove all elements where there's only 
one of them

all patients who have had more than one office visit over the past 
year with a diagnosis of hypertension :)

oh ... you want  'UNIQUE

why do you need the second argument?

unique [ 1 1 2 3 4 ]
== [ 1 2 3 4 ]

no .. I want alter

set1: [ 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 ] <= need to remove 4
set2: unique copy set1
alter set1 set2

no need for copy... all "set" functions copy.

can never remember which copy and which inline

the above returns...  [1 2 3 4] on my test.

sorry  [1 2 3 2 3 4]

well, that's no good is it!

so you want to remove singletons from a block?

yes .. so why isn't alter doing that?

actually I want to remove one of each

ok so given:    [ 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 4 ] 
what is desired result?

[ 1 2 3 ]

maybe I do want exclude and then unqiue

no .. exclude operates on sets

if you know [4] then that will work

blk:  [ 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 4 ]
unique exclude blk [4]

I don't know

ok working on a solution (I like these quick riddles)