World: r3wp

Going with the latter (s/:c) would be more compatible with REBOL 
and Red, and leave room for expanding Red/System's capabilities in 
the future.

No offset references means no set-word syntax in FOREACH - good to 
know.

Agreed

And no FORALL and FORSKIP.

Perhaps, that's what I'm thinking too, but s/c looks more consistent 
with current Red/System abstraction level.

I might add support for FOREACH for string! & binary! if this can 
make me avoid to add FOR. :-)

Things would be less confusing if Red/System and Red were compatible 
for corresponding concepts. This would also let you prototype Red/System 
code in Red.

You would still need something like FOR if you don't have offset 
references, because FOREACH doesn't let you modify its argument without 
set-word syntax.

Well, I already have WHILE, so FOR is optional anyway, just syntactic 
sugar. I should add REPEAT too, if I still miss FOR after that, I'll 
add it.

Enough for tonight, it's very late here. I just wanted to give you 
some taste of what Red/System would look like. I'll work on Cheyenne 
new release and new documentation tomorrow, I should be able to get 
back to Red after that. I hope to be able to put the current codebase 
on github during the weekend.

Good night!

Thanks!

Sweet dreams :-)

Thanks Kaj, you too.

Thanks

Red's web forum now opened : http://groups.google.com/group/red-lang?hl=en

Thanks for posting all hat Doc. Looks like great progress so far.

If REBOL would have been open sourced the force of Doc would have 
improved REBOL and not splitted into RED.

Who says Red can't be used to improve REBOL? They're complementary.

Doc said you will be able to write R3 extensions in Red, instead 
of C :-)

It would still be nice, if Carl would completly open-source R3 though 
:-) Because it could lift certain amount of energy into some ppl 
confidence, and R3 could grow faster. Well - in theory, at least 
:-)

No argument here

Started a new blog : http://red-chronicle.blogspot.com/

And a Twitter : http://twitter.com/red_chronicle

Very nice. :-)

Red/System alpha 1 is now available: http://j.mp/gTnaX2

Seems REBOL/View is required:

>> do/args %rsc.r "%tests/hello.reds"
** Script Error: Feature not available in this REBOL
** Where: context
** Near: file-header: make struct! [

Doc, works well here. Keep it up!

Cyphre: thanks! Need to fix the README to point to R/View...can't 
believe that struct! is not supported by Core...Damn limitations...

Pushed three small fixes to https://github.com/earl/Red

(/View, some typos, and creation of the builds/ directory if it does 
not exist)

Oh, did the same...now need to learn how to merge and resolve conflicts 
with Git :-)

By the way, you currently have two public branches in your repo, 
one called "origin" and one called "master". I would suggest making 
"master" the default branch and dropping "origin".

Nah, don't mind. I just drop the /View fix and forward-port the other 
two.

Yes, I did a bad move with my git client and created two branches 
instead of one. Looking in github for a "drop branch" button.

Ok, my repository is updated containing only the two still relevant 
patches.

wau... it works:)

:-)

Forgot to mention in the blog, but << and >> operators are not implemented 
yet. They are defined in the compiler but lacks the backend part 
in the code emitter. Anyway, you can achieve the same using * and 
/ with powers of 2, they'll generate shifts instead of math ops.

Added the missing builds/ folder to the repo.

Congrats Doc :) .. I will be following this.

Since red/system is c-level and compiled you can't and don't plan 
to have runtime goodnes of rebol in it. But the code is still data, 
so do you think you could use compile time macros to keep the core 
simpler and solve many things with macros then (like lisps do)?

Are #define statements defining constants?

Brian: yes (afaict)

Will /Pro work, or is /View needed for something other than structs?

/Pro should be enough (just need struct! support AFAIR)

Janko: thanks! About compile-time macros: that's an option. You already 
have #define, but it's quite limited for now (no  multiline or parameters 
support).

I'm not sure adding macros at the "data" level (LOADed source) would 
be really needed. Once Red will be ready, you'll be able to compose 
Red/System dialect source code at Red level (with all the block! 
series power), as you do today in REBOL with VID, DRAW, or other 
dialects.

Can it output DLLs yet?

No, but it shouldn't be hard to add.