World: r4wp

So the "interpreted functions" do not exists at compile-time nor 
in the executable in source form, as their are created at runtime.

they

what about function argument, like in Rebol? I mean, those catch 
etc. arguments?

I thought the source is added as extra for body-of?

We could remove the body block of compiled function! values, yes, 
so it doesn't get added to the executable. That could be an optional 
switch that would also disable undefine 'body-of accessor.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean

Pekr: I don't understand your question, could you be more specific?

Doc - Kaj wants some option to trigger functions being complied in 
various ways. I just said, that maybe it can be done on per function 
basis, using special parameters ...

my-func: func [[dynamic] a [integer!]][]

Yes, I was also thinking in that direction

The problem might be, that it has to be decided during compile time, 
so the source code would have to be analyzed. Otoh it might be the 
right place (instead of preprocessor) to fit in, along with catch, 
throw ....

You can still define it at runtime in such case, instead of statically 
define it. No need to add another attribute.

Functions created at runtime will always retain their body block.

You will be able to achieve that using different approaches:

1) Using DO: do [foo: func [...][...]]

2) Indirectly specifying the spec and/or body block: 

    body: [...]
    foo: func [...] body

This will result in 'foo function been created at runtime (then JIT-compiled 
or interpreted on each call).

Kaj: you should add your syntax proposition for keyword! + issue! 
to github tracker as a wish, so we don't forget about it.

If we don't find any big drawback, I think I will implement it.

OK, thanks

Added routines invocation support to interpreter.

Congratulations: the rhythm of changes in Red is just fast!

I scripted a little command that I run from time to time, just to 
see how both Rebol3 and Red are going:
cd ~/dev/Red/ && git pull && cd && cd dev/r3/ && git pull

And I can see through gitk that the rythm of Red's work is just amazing. 
Courage!

Merci Pierre ! :-)

De rien, merci à toi!

I cannot really find a startup guide for Red: so, if no one shouts, 
I'll try to write one, during my long hours of flight next week.

That would be good

ok, then!

Pierre, have you scrolled down throw this page: https://github.com/dockimbel/Red
?

through

Let me know if there are missing information there.

I had read another version of these instructions; it looks like it 
was reworked a bit.

Yes it was, the Red/System README was merged in Red's one.

I looked into the docs subdirectory, ran
rebol makedoc2.r 

It made red-system-quick-test.html, but then I got my eyes sore with 
the black background, so I wanted the light version, clicked and 
... oops:

Firefox ne peut trouver le fichier à l'adresse /home/pierre/heaume_pierre/developpt/Red/docs/$LIGHT$.

I found a reference to $LIGHT$ at the bottom of red-system-quick-test.txt 
, in what looks like a rebol script below a make-doc document.

REBOL []

do/args %makedoc2.r 'load-only
doc: scan-doc read file: system/options/script
set [title out] gen-html/options doc [(options)]

file: last split-path file
replace file ".txt" ".html"
file2: copy file
insert find file2 "." "-light"
replace out "$DARK$"  file
replace out "$LIGHT$" file2

write file out
replace out "dark.css" "light.css"
write file2 out

Makedoc format allows the addition of REBOL code at the end. The 
proper way to generate the doc files is to CD to the folder, then 
run REBOL on %red-system-quick-test.txt

ok

BTW, you can find these documentations already generated online here: 
http://www.red-lang.org/p/documentation.html

Isn't it a bit dark?...

It's to save power ... fewer photons emitted

What? The site or the docs?

;-) the site emits too few photons

to my taste...

Something that I miss, from this doc page, would be a "getting started" 
with a step-by-step guide to start coding in Red

Red on black is just nearly invisible.

Well, I try to switch to dark themes to both save powers and my eyes. 
;-) 


I've provided a switching option to more classical "light" theme 
for the docs, but doing the same for the web site was too much work 
for me, so I've left it with the dark theme only. I will fix that 
once we get a new web site for Red (or if someone skilled enough 
can make the changes, I'll be glad to push them online).

yes; and white on black with my firefox fonts is quite painful. I 
have a nuclear power plant nearby, providing enough electrons moving, 
so that I can afford to waste a few photons...

don't worry about this... just a detail

Graham: it renders well here, but I don't use Clear Type. I plan 
to make some typographic changes to the blog anyway to make it more 
easily readable, I'll see if I can improve the rendering of red text 
parts.

Actually, it is better on an LCD display, than on my old CRT.

I've trashed my last CRT in 1997. ;-)

Actually, if some people want to tweak the CSS for the Red blog to 
make it more readable, I'll be glad to review and push the changes 
if I'm fine with them.

Can you add a link to the makedoc files on each html page?

There is no makedoc files, I'm using the Blogger platform (Google). 
Unfortunately, a bad choice, it is an awful blogging platform, the 
only part that doesn't suck is the Google Analytics integration.