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

World: r4wp

[!REBOL3] General discussion about REBOL 3

Andreas
10-Mar-2013
[1502]
If you can find a way to be more specific on OSX, so that _only_ 
URLs get handled, that would be great. OTOH, xdg-open is already 
rather versatile as well (only I fear that OSX's open is even more 
featureful).
MarcS
10-Mar-2013
[1503x4]
One problem with the existing implementation is that xdg-open and 
x-www-browser are searched for in the PATH, so executables with the 
same names in a PATH directory that takes precedence will yield different 
behaviour.
Andreas: yeah, file:/// will open in Finder with this pathc.
patch*.
(So it's not constrained to the browser.)
Andreas
10-Mar-2013
[1507]
That's the same with xdg-open.
MarcS
10-Mar-2013
[1508]
Right.
BrianH
10-Mar-2013
[1509]
Yeah. It looks like it just calls open, which can be a bit of a hole. 
It's better for now but we need to come up with a better solution 
in the long run.
MarcS
10-Mar-2013
[1510x3]
Agreed.
Hmm, why does BROWSE accept NONE?
BrianH: I don't mean to present this patch as something it's not. 
To clarify: still a hacky solution, but at least it brings the current 
behaviour to OS X.
BrianH
10-Mar-2013
[1513]
No, agreed. It's still nowhere near as bad as the #1921 approach, 
or the last ticket that requested it. But we need to make sure to 
come up with something better in the long run.
MarcS
10-Mar-2013
[1514x3]
For sure.
I might patch this NONE case unless anyone has a good reason to leave 
it in place?
(At the moment, you get usage info on stderr. The current r3 just 
segfaults on Linux.)
BrianH
10-Mar-2013
[1517]
It's none propagation I guess. Because dealing with or ignoring nones 
is easier to do in Rebol than writing conditional code around everything 
to avoid triggering errors.
MarcS
10-Mar-2013
[1518]
Okay, so I guess we just need to handle the NONE rather than attempting 
to browse it
BrianH
10-Mar-2013
[1519x3]
The BROWSE code should explicitly do nothing if passed a NONE. It 
certainly shouldn't segfault.
If it doesn't explicitly do nothing, that's a bug.
Just return unset, I guess.
MarcS
10-Mar-2013
[1522x2]
Okay, fixing now.
not R_NONE?
BrianH
10-Mar-2013
[1524]
No, that returns none. Whatever BROWSE normally returns.
Andreas
10-Mar-2013
[1525]
It normally returns NONE.
MarcS
10-Mar-2013
[1526]
R_NONE
Andreas
10-Mar-2013
[1527]
But I think the original intent was for NONE to open an empty browser. 
Can't find any references for that.
BrianH
10-Mar-2013
[1528]
Weird. Shouldn't it return unset?
MarcS
10-Mar-2013
[1529]
https://github.com/rebol/r3/blob/master/src/core/n-io.c#L499
Andreas
10-Mar-2013
[1530]
Should probably rather return the URL, that would be more useful 
:)
BrianH
10-Mar-2013
[1531]
That treatment of a none argument makes sense, Andreas. However, 
the function should return unset, like PRINT.
MarcS
10-Mar-2013
[1532x2]
If we can agree on something, I'll push that the change.
BrianH: So, R_UNSET?
Andreas
10-Mar-2013
[1534]
That's independent of the OSX open fix in any case.
BrianH
10-Mar-2013
[1535]
Sure. And in the has-a-url case too.
Andreas
10-Mar-2013
[1536]
So better just file a CC issue for the `browse none` crash, and we 
can discuss the desired design in there.
BrianH
10-Mar-2013
[1537]
Yeah, maybe two pulls.
MarcS
10-Mar-2013
[1538]
Okay, I'll pop this in a separate branch.
BrianH
10-Mar-2013
[1539]
Marc, did you file a ticket for this? If not, I can repurpose #1921 
for this.
Andreas
10-Mar-2013
[1540]
Win32 browse opens an empty browser for NONE.
MarcS
10-Mar-2013
[1541]
I didn't, no.
Andreas
10-Mar-2013
[1542]
Please don't repurpose 1921 :)
BrianH
10-Mar-2013
[1543]
Let 1921 stay dismissed, OK.
Andreas
10-Mar-2013
[1544x2]
One ticket for missing BROWSE on OSX, another one for the browse 
none crash.
https://github.com/rebol/r3/blob/master/src/os/win32/host-lib.c#L640
BrianH
10-Mar-2013
[1546]
Will do. And I'm still revamping the REWORD ticket example code.
Andreas
10-Mar-2013
[1547]
Well, I'll briefly write up the crash ticket.
BrianH
10-Mar-2013
[1548]
If you could write both I'd appreciate it. I have limited R3 time 
today, I have an R2 task I have to work on.
Andreas
10-Mar-2013
[1549]
Ok.
MarcS
10-Mar-2013
[1550x2]
https://github.com/0branch/r3/commit/95e3481ffba473f9191b918dd2eb890e764ff32a
If that looks good, I can submit pull requests for both issues once 
Andreas has written up the issues?