World: r3wp

Yes, but should work with AGG ones

I use a workaround, putting all text display last in draw block

Q: what result does "pen none" give ? Transparent color, or no drawing 
!

it does draw, with black color in this case

For the first box or the second ?

only the second

And the first ?

the first is transparent

'text seem to affect pen selection: if I change 'text location, it's 
after 'text this problem happens

('text location in draw block)

I tried to make a face with text and invisible boxes

the boxes colors are changed at runtime

it's a draw version of 'textlist

s1: make struct! [] none
s2: make struct! [] none
same? s1 s2
;== none  ; (expected false)
same? s1 s1
;== none  ; (expected true)
blk: reduce [s1]
;== [make struct! [] []]
find blk s2
;== [make struct! [] []]  ; (expected none)
equal? s1 s2

;== none  ; (are struct! comparable like string! (expect true) or 
incomparable like object!  (expect false) ?)

Doesn't look like this bug is in rambo database. I should submit 
a bug. Any complaints?

Here's a more difficult one - FORM.
I always guessed that PRINT uses FORM internally:

print ["" "hello"]
;hello
print [" " "hello"]
;  hello    ; <--- 2 leading spaces
form ["" "hello"]
;== "hello"
form [" " "hello"]
;== "  hello"  ; <--- 2 leading spaces

Isn't that kind of inconsistant ? You have a choice of 0 or 2+.  
How do you get just 1 leading space ?
Furthermore:

prin ["" "hello" ""] print "."
;hello .   ; <---- 1 traling space
form ["" "hello" ""]
;== "hello "   ; <--- 1 trailing space

print rejoin [" " "whatever" " "] ;   ;)

The inconsistency is also between empty strings which are in first 
position or a later position in the block.

Yes, Izkata, I am well aware of that workaround.

No real argument from me, though, since I don't know and have never 
used 'form or simply printed blocks

However, I keep bumping into this problem and so it wastes my time 
continually. I also imagine it's a small confusion for beginners.

So, I would like:
print ["" "hello"]
; hello  ; <---- 1 leading space
form ["" "hello"]
;== " hello"  ; <--- 1 leading space
form ["" "hello" ""]
;== " hello "  ; <--- 1 leading and 1 trailing space
And similar results for PRINT.
Anyone have any objections ?

Anton - how can you produce space without actually providing a space? 
;-) "" is empty string. Even 'empty? tells you so ... it can't add 
space by some magis, just only because it is used in a  block or 
form ...

FORM puts a space between all items in the block when it is joining 
them together, even items which are empty strings - *except* if it 
is the first item.

You should read my examples more carefully.

Well now, that is not always true either !
form [{} {} {} {} {}] ; a whole bunch of empty strings
;== ""  ; <--- empty string
form [{} {a} {} {} {}] ; one character added
;== "a   "  ; <--- three trailing spaces

Perhaps form is just waiting until there's a value before it adds 
stuff?
>> form [{} {} {} {Hi} {} {}]
== "Hi  " ;2 spaces, and only after string w/value found
>> form [{} {} {} {Hi} {} {} {Hi} {}]
== "Hi   Hi " ;2 spaces and 1 space..


But yes, there probably ought to be a space in fron like you said 
before.  If the behavoir I think is happening, then 'trim should 
just be used, not letting it be automatic

I am guessing the logic behind FORM is that it changes mode at the 
first non-empty string.

Basically what I tried to say but couldn't type correctly  ;)

Anton - it does not matter imo. It is design of 'form or 'print, 
that those add spaces between chars, but once you put empty string 
into block, it is value, and the value is empty string, so it is 
imo incorrect to want it represent space

Read my comment above.

Pekr, look at this example. There are five items in the block (some 
are empty strings). So I expect five items to be separated by four 
spaces. 
form ["" 1 "" 2 ""] 

;== "1  2 "     ; <<<< but I count only three spaces in the result

Gabriele, I see #3455 and #3576 are basically identical. I think 
#3576 is more accurate, so older #3455 should be removed.

Ok, submitted a report for the struct! comparison bugs above.

Undecided about FORM....

Here's another bug:

BUG: using DETECT (instead of ENGAGE) is unreliable with stopping 
time events, as in this example:

lay: layout [btn "start" [lay/rate: 1 show lay] btn "stop" [lay/rate: 
none show lay]] lay/feel: make lay/feel [detect: func [face event][if 
event/type = 'time [print ['tick now/precise lay/rate]] event]] view 
lay
p: open http://www.rebol.com
close p
view lay

If you paste the above code straight into your console, the problem 
is present in the first VIEW as well as the second VIEW.

If you type/paste each line individually into your console, the problem 
is only present after the network access.

Once a console has the problem, it remains "contaminated", and you 
will need to open another console to continue testing.

Testing on REBOL/View 1.2.57.3.1e

Anton: I have no idea if the FORM behavior is intentional or a bug. 
about detect: maybe the difference is due to copy&paste?

it's hard to believe something that hasn't been evaluated yet (i.e. 
the open) affects the view...

indeed, if you preceed the lines after the first view by semicolons 
(;) you get the same problem

to me it looks like that the problem happens if there are pending 
characters in the console yet to be read.

try to paste that into a string and then try to DO the string. the 
problem is only there after the OPEN. so, OPEN does trigger it anyway.

I have submitted an issue entry in RAMBO about make integer!. I should 
like to know what people think about what must be the "RIGHT" conversion 
result.

My first question  is "make integer! should return a decimal! in 
some cases"?

Anton, i have the same rate problem in a program of mine! I was not 
able to reduce the problem to a simple example.

There is a workaround: call unview, then rate restarts to stop :-)