World: r4wp

(As you might have gathered, I'm not much of a Githubber)

For NONE I see the following options to fix the crash right away: 
either remove the NONE feature altogether (removing functionality 
that currently sometimes works on Win32), or use http:// on POSIX 
(as a not totally reliable workaround), or move the early exit to 
the POSIX specific code (creating a cross-platform incompatibility 
between Win32 and POSIX platforms).

Re: Haiku, http://code.metager.de/source/xref/haiku/headers/posix/unistd.h#212

Anyway, the subtree is named 'posix' :)

Good, thanks for looking that up. I can try building on Haiku later 
on.

Great

Git question: can I ignore changes to makefile without modifying 
.gitignore?

With how the repository is currently set up: I don't know of a way 
how to do that. Just don't add the makefile changes before you commit.

Sure, I'm not staging them.

I seem to recall that there's a global ignore setting

(Which I'd likely be abusing, but might be suitable.)

I don't think that comes into play with files already present in 
the repo.

.git/info/exclude is a per-repository ignore list.

Aha, thanks

Just found that https://help.github.com/articles/ignoring-fileshere

Cool. So --assume-unchanged helps :)

git update-index --assume-unchanged make/makefile

Oh good stuff -- the exclude list doesn't

Since already committed

Hopefully one remembers having marked a file with --assume-unchanged 
when actually _trying_ to stage changes from that file :)

$ git ls-files -v | grep "^[a-z]"
h make/makefile

aha, http://durdn.com/blog/2012/11/22/must-have-git-aliases-advanced-examples/

nice aliases

including unasumeall

This SO chat seems quite nice, perhaps I should sign up. The interleaving 
of CureCode and Github feeds works well.

That's pretty nice, yes :)

Incidentally, nice to (re)meet you.

(Pretty sure we chatted on here about 6 months ago.)

Quite possible :) Nice to (re)meet you to.

Andreas, I have an interesting Git problem related to R3 and the 
new version of VS2012. Git both in Github and now in VS are both 
detecting a couple files in the build directory you helped me make 
as having changed or being new. I thought that whole directory was 
ignored in .gitignore, so it seems weird.

build/ should be ignored, yes. (Let's move to "Git" or to private 
chat for that.)

For anyone following the browse stuff, I rebased as Andreas suggested 
-- while the above changesets/commits are still accessible, the new 
ones are listed in the pull request.

(Split in two)

In CC #1990 http://issue.cc/r3/1990
I think there a typo in the example :

	>> reword/escape "!bang;bang;" [bang "!"] ["!" ";"]
	== "!blah;"  ; One-pass, continues after the replacement

Thanks, I'll fix that. Originally it was HTML entities, but something 
about CC's update process converts those entities to their original 
characters, which corrupted the code examples. I started using blah 
before I switched to bang.

This is something that surprises me:

system/version ; == 2.100.111.3.1
for i 1 2 0 [prin "x"] ; == none (I am OK with this)

for i 2 1 0 [prin "x"] ; xxxx..... (this does not look compatible 
with the above)

Yeah, that looks like a bug. Write a ticket?

And a step of 0 makes it not run and return none, instead of triggering 
an error? Is that right?

Yes, but I do not object against that (no problem with me)

Does somebody have other preferences?

I'm OK with that, since the alternative is either an endless loop 
or conditional code to avoid error trapping. But it needs to make 
sense conceptually.

Oh, and please don't be bug-for-bug compatible in your R2 version. 
If you find bugs in R3's version, let's report and fix them, now's 
the time :)

Another test:

for i 1 1 0 [prin "x"] ; xxxx.....

If we define the FOR function with a special-case that a step of 
0 will definitely not make the loop run, and have the function return 
none, that makes for some simple tests to add to rebol-tests. Just 
have it break/return something other than none in the code block. 
Like this:
[none? for i 1 1 0 [break/return 1]]
[none? for i 1 2 0 [break/return 1]]
[none? for i 2 1 0 [break/return 1]]
... maybe.

Yes, I am OK with that

none? for i 1 1 0 [break]

looks sufficient as well

Good.

FOREACH triggers an error in that case, the case of the empty word 
block.

Should we be consistent?

I thoguht I did a FOR compatible wrapper for CFOR at one time, but 
I can't find it right now.

Is that along the lines of what you're thinking Ladislav?