World: r3wp

http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/rambo.r?id=3532&

Can such /with refinements be added to the default protocols built 
on SSL? It shouldn't hurt when the ssl:// default is eventually fixed.

it was added to http, it should to any other protocol that uses ssl.

but the bug should really be fixed! i have reported it in 2004 ;)

Good to know!

that history is repeating itself :(

Perhaps you can use the /with refinement in your esmtps protocol, 
Graham.

Yeah ..

yes, i think it will work fine if you just open/with

Someone at RT should really go thru the old bugs and make sure that 
they are all fixed

that will eventually happen.

that's why they are in rambo - they won't be forgotten.

is forgetting them better than not fixing them?  I wonder  ;-)

I'm looking at the http protocol source, and I find no indication 
of any fix to the default line ending of ssl:// - do I have the right 
source? It is dated 5-Dec-2005...

same as mine

hmm, was that lost?

my understanding is, that the usage of the /ONLY refinement is an 
error in cases like:

    a-string: ""
    insert/only a-string "ab"


currently REBOL just ignores the refinement, what are your preferences?

what should /only do for strings?

If you carefully read my post, then you may see that you asked the 
same question I did

ok, sorry, I understood it as if you had the answer and wanted to 
hear others first. :-)

I just have my preferences, but don't know what the others prefer

It should put  a string in the position of one char :D
Its an programmer-error. Do we  need a runtime-check?

I guess, that it is simpler to silently ignore the refinement from 
the interpreter designer POV

Ok, I guess, I'm completely misunderstanding the problem. Volker, 
what do you mean by putting a string in the position of one char?

that is what insert/only a-string "ab" requests for, althought it 
cannot be done

ah, so it would replace the character at the position and then insert 
the string from there?

Henrik, look at how  it works with  blocks ;)

...and how it is described in its doc string

I know how it works with blocks, but I can't see how this would work 
with strings? You can't make strings inside other strings, unless 
you mean {"string"} or "{string}". And it's AFAIK not possible to 
control when to use one or the other?

Thats why i added the ":D" ;) Yes, its impossible. But theprogrammer 
said "do so"

Maybe the wrong emoticon?

Volker, I think I understood that, but I just fail to see the current 
behaviour with /only on strings as a problem, so I guess I have to 
vote for the current behaviour. :-)

Strictly iusing  it for strings is a bug. But not a problem.

And ignoring silly refinements  is done everywhere in natives.

ladislav, many funcs are intended to support all of a given set of 
types (numbers, series, etc).


we must not turn rebol into a "strict" language... the "looseness" 
in the case where some effects are irrelevent are not really bugs.

as opposed to calculus which has a definite and single true output 
value.  REBOL should give an error in those cases, cause then, the 
process of calculus is an error (like out of bounds, etc)

{the "looseness" in the case where some effects are irrelevent are 
not really bugs} - yes, I understand this POV and respect it. that 
is why I am not enforcing my POV in this case and prefer to ask you

I know its hard to put the line where loseness becomes a bug (like 
the few cases this kind of effect has been brought up before)

my idea was more in the sense: {insert/only "" "ab"} is a most likely 
a programmer error. therefore if the interpreter causes the error, 
it helps the programmer find the bug in his code. If the interpreter 
silently ignores the problem, then the programmer may be unable to 
find out there is probably something wrong

(so I saw it as a kind of debugging help)

but that depends where the "" comes from... your human sense sees 
this as a bug, but an algorythm merging a set of series of abstract 
types would not...  ;-)

well, if that algorithm really *needs* the string to occupy just 
one "place" in another string, then it may contain a bug, which may 
be revealed by testing, but not by evaluating this suspicious code

(Ladislav is the one thinking this to be suspicious ;-)  I have a 
merge func which could not care less, all it wants is to make sure 
that equal things get inserted equaly, string into string, blocks 
into blocks...  so in that sense, the above is not suspicious at 
all.  but if only reacted differently for string, then I'd have to 
add an ugly escape route for that case ;-)

But if  /ONLY reacted ...

but if you really want to do what you said, then you probably don't 
use the /only refinement, do you?

(just curious)

back later... off to lunch !

(well that was diner actually... but anyways ;-)

yes, cause I don't want merge to insert the content of the block 
which is being merged, I want it to merge the block itself... (if 
that is what is submitted) ex:


[ 1 2 3 ] [["one"] ["two"] ["three"]]  == [ 1 ["one"] 2 ["two"]  
3 ["three"]]

I see both possible behaviours balanced close to equally, except 
that keeping the "loose" behaviour is already here and has the benefit 
of not needing any changes.