• Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r4wp

[!REBOL3] General discussion about REBOL 3

NickA
28-Feb-2013
[1329]
let's move to chit chat
Scot
28-Feb-2013
[1330x2]
Good teachers do, but in very individualistic sorts of ways.  I'm 
always struck by how different great teachers are.
to chit chat...
Bo
1-Mar-2013
[1332]
Um...a bit of unexpected behavior here on the Linux ARM version of 
R3:

>> 6.63 / 59
== 0.

>> 6.63 / 59.0
== 4.

Neither are correct.
Cyphre
1-Mar-2013
[1333]
Bo, I guess you are missing the dtoa.c pull-request from Ladislav 
in your ARM codebase. I bet that will help you.
Bo
1-Mar-2013
[1334]
I'm using the ARM build from rebolsource.net.
Cyphre
1-Mar-2013
[1335]
(check the official Carl's R3 github repo, It's in the pull-request 
queue)
Bo
1-Mar-2013
[1336]
What that pull request more recent than 24-Jan-2013?
Cyphre
1-Mar-2013
[1337]
Doesn't the binaries on rebolsource.net only contain accepted pull-requests?
AdrianS
1-Mar-2013
[1338]
yes, only the accepted ones are built with
Cyphre
1-Mar-2013
[1339x2]
So Bo, that's why your ARM binary doesn't behave well.
(I can confirm Anodroid ARM port shows correct result)
Bo
1-Mar-2013
[1341]
OK.  Thanks for the confirmation.
Sunanda
1-Mar-2013
[1342]
Is this an R3 bug or feature? Duplicate word in a single object....

    ob: object [] append ob  [b: 2 b: 3 b: 4]
    == make object! [
        b: 2
        b: 3
        b: 4
    ]


    foreach w words-of ob [print get w]   ;; they are actually different
    2
    3
    4
Maxim
1-Mar-2013
[1343]
that HAS to be a bug.
Sunanda
1-Mar-2013
[1344]
That what I thought, thanks -- but could not see it in curecode, 
and don't remember it in earlier versions. So it may be Something 
Very Clever :)
BrianH
1-Mar-2013
[1345]
Nope, it's an APPEND bug. Please report it (and thanks for all the 
reports lately).
Sunanda
1-Mar-2013
[1346]
Thanks. Done.
http://curecode.org/rebol3/ticket.rsp?id=1979
Bo
1-Mar-2013
[1347x2]
@GrahamC: Thanks A LOT for prot-smtp.r and prot-send.r.  I was able 
to send an email from R3, but only after changing a line from:

	ehlo: any [ port/spec/ehlo "rebol3 user pc" ]
to
	ehlo: any [ port/spec/ehlo port/spec/email ]
My smtp server was throwing a 501 5.0.0 Invalid domain name
GrahamC
1-Mar-2013
[1349]
Thanks .. http://chat.stackoverflow.com/transcript/message/8019099#8019099
Bo
1-Mar-2013
[1350]
No, thank you!
Bo
2-Mar-2013
[1351]
On R3 ARM:

>> header: [
** Syntax error: missing "]" at "end-of-script"
** Near: (line 1) header: [


I guess we can't cut-n-paste multi-line scripts into the console 
at present.
Henrik
2-Mar-2013
[1352]
I don't believe this works anywhere yet.
Bo
2-Mar-2013
[1353]
I tried to find a submitted bug in Curecode, but couldn't find one, 
so I submitted one.
GrahamC
2-Mar-2013
[1354]
The rebolbot has a multiline console :)
Bo
2-Mar-2013
[1355]
Very cool!
Bo
3-Mar-2013
[1356]
More prot-send.r testing.  Had the hardest time trying to get 'send 
to work with my mail server.  Found I had to change a line in prot-send.r 
to :


 smtp-port: [ scheme: 'smtp host: (user/smtp) user: (user/user) pass: 
 (user/pass) ehlo: (find/tail user/email 
@
) timeout: 600 ]


as EHLO on my SMTP host was expecting only the domain portion of 
the email address instead of the entire email address which is what 
I had been trying.
AdrianS
3-Mar-2013
[1357]
Bo, Have you forked Graham's scripts to push fixes for these?
GrahamC
3-Mar-2013
[1358x2]
Bo, you could have asked me :)
These aren't fixes ... you just have to know what ehlo expects
Bo
3-Mar-2013
[1360]
@GrahamC: I understand what you're saying, but how do mail programs 
like Outlook and Thunderbird figure out what to send EHLO?
Andreas
3-Mar-2013
[1361x2]
The expected EHLO parameter is the client's hostname.
Outlook and Thunderbird can "just" look up what your local machine 
claims to have configured as hostname.
GrahamC
3-Mar-2013
[1363]
Previously we could use read dns:// .. but that doesn't work in R3
Gregg
3-Mar-2013
[1364]
Windows has a gethostname API. I always liked the read dns:// feature 
though.
Ladislav
3-Mar-2013
[1365]
RANDOM help: "Pick a random value from a series" . The text looks 
a bit inaccurate to me. Wouldn't one of:

Randomly pick a value from a series

or

Pick a value from a series at random


For me, these reflect more accurately what is random. Any opinions?
Gregg
3-Mar-2013
[1366]
I like the current text. What makes it unclear, or inaccurate to 
you?
Bo
3-Mar-2013
[1367x3]
I understand what Ladislav is saying.  The current text implies that 
there is a series of random values, and one will be picked.
Or it could mean that there is a series, and one of the values will 
be picked randomly.
I think Lad's two suggestions are both more clear.
Gregg
3-Mar-2013
[1370x3]
What was wrong with the R2 text?

  "Return single value from series."


But the doc string for 'value isn't helpful with regard to series 
values either.

I would make it a bit more readable though.

  Return a single value from the series.
value -- Maximum value of result or series (modified when series)
Should have a comma:


value -- Maximum value of result, or series (modified when series)
Bo
3-Mar-2013
[1373x3]
Moving from the 'random topic back to prot-send.r, I found a somewhat 
serious bug with attachments and base-64 encoding.  I sent the exact 
same attachment using webmail and R3.


at position 32677 in the email sent by webmail (the headers are slighly 
different sizes and the base-64 line breaks are different between 
the two clients) we have the following data:


eMHgCm4jUznXtDnpVKaErkAc107QbjVC6siyHYBu96hxLUjnXDKeWqPOTzVmWxuUY7kJ+lRGF16x

tn6VmO4ncYpZX34HYU0qw7EU3afSgdyUKCvy1s6DpEN3doL93jtyD9089Caq6bZO0g3Llj0Wu8t9

OhsNDu7uUK9wYiq/7OeOK1p03Mwq1eXRbnnUVuZJcKCecD3rctbVbYjdy5/Si1ks7WTLyAerYzUH


at position 32521 in the email sent by R3, we have the following 
data:


vaHNtZYHTmoHtcDpXRSQDk1UeMHgCm4jUznXtDnpVKaErkAc107QbjVC6siyHYBu96hxLUjn
XDKeWq

doL93jtyD9089Caq6bZO0g3Llj0Wu8t9OhsNDu7uUK9wYiq/7OeOK1p03Mwq1eXRbnnUVuZJ


I copied the three lines of data around where the problem occurs. 
 On the short line in the R3 data, the following sequence is missing:


POTzVmWxuUY7kJ+lRGF16xtn6VmO4ncYpZX34HYU0qw7EU3afSgdyUKCvy1s6DpEN3


You can imagine the kind of trouble that causes with binary data. 
;-)
Other than that, the two series are identical.
Before delving deep into R3 code, does anyone have any knowledge 
or idea of why this is happening?  Could it be a problem with buffer 
allocation around the 32K boundary?
Ladislav
3-Mar-2013
[1376x3]
Example (allow me to be a bit "unreasonable"):

random/seed 0
block: reduce [1 2 random 100] ; == [1 2 31] (in R3)


now being ordered "Pick a random value from BLOCK" I may (not very 
intelligently, I know) expect that I am required to pick 31 because 
that is the only random value in there (absurd, but compatible with 
the text, as I see it)
While being ordered "Pick a value from BLOCK at random", I would 
just pick whatever I like
I am not a native speaker, though, (but Bo understood my concern, 
I think), so I may be wrong when interpreting the sentences.