World: r3wp

Notice that example1 is more efficient than example 2.  However, 
Example 3 takes the flexibility of setting my-block to a cleared 
block and actually is more efficient than example 1.

So unless your gonna utilize that method as in Example 3 then your 
better off with Example 1.

Am I missing something or should this function be like an operator 
or something?:

family?: func [arg1 arg2][
    if equal? type? arg1 type? arg2 [return true]
    false
]


Maybe convert >< into op! that performs that task.  Maybe there is 
another function I overlooked.

I'm running a CGI script from which I want to 'launch another script 
to do some housekeeping. The output from the launched script (including 
the Rebol banners) is returned to the browser. Is there a way to 
redirect the output from the launched Rebol session?

(I am getting this behaviour on both Mac OS X and Linux).

OK, so 'close does not return anything...so you can't  try a block 
with close if close is the last line in the block of you check if 
error? try [close whatever]

If I use instead:

if error? catch [
	close whatever
 	true
][print "will this ever get printed?"]

I'm finding a bug in loop function.  Anyone know of a problem with 
loop.  Heading to Rambo...

enough...
family?: func [arg1 arg2][
    equal? type? arg1 type? arg2
]

Yes Steeve, I was doing other things with ihe function which is why 
it had the false.  That was a remant.

Notice this  problem I'm seeing in loop:

>> d: []
== []
>> loop 2 [append d [1 [fname]]]
== [1 [fname] 1 [fname]]
>> db/get test5 d
>> d
== [1 [0] 1 [0]]
>> d: []
== []
>> append d [1 [fname] 1 [fname]]
== [1 [fname] 1 [fname]]
>> db/get test5 d
>> d
== [1 [1] 1 [1]]

I spent a couple hours checking my code and yet  it seems LOOP is 
the culprit.

would be surprising...

I don't get it either it is really strange.

try...
 loop 2 [append d copy/deep [1 [fname]]]

that works

>> loop 2 [append d copy/deep [1 [fname]]]
== [1 [fname] 1 [fname]]
>> db/get test5 d
>> d
== [1 [1] 1 [1]]

But the crazy thing is that the block contained the correct values 
without the  copy/deep.

Still seems to be a bug somewhere.

missing a copy somewhere in your code

I added copies and it didn't change anything so I removed them again.

Besides it works find it I didn't use the loop  to populate the block.

do u use poke or change block! somewhere ?

yes I use change

tried copy on that part also and it didnt' make a difference.

hmm...

See this works fine:

>> d: []
== []
>> insert tail d [1 [fname]]
== []
>> insert tail d [1 [fname]]
== []
>> d
== [1 [fname] 1 [fname]]
>> db/get test5 d
>> d
== [1 [1] 1 [1]]

It is when I get the 0's in the part that I  know it failed somewhere. 
 I get that only when using loop to fill the d block.

normal, it's different blocks, walways the same bug with a missing 
copy some

...somewhere

I copied it to death until I figured out it was in loop.

Maybe not a bug just a need to use copy/deep in loop.

Steeve, I see what you were saying.  I went ahead and fixed that 
by changing a piece of code so that the d block wasn't modified also.

It's not a bg in loop, you are reusing the inner block [fname] where 
you shouldn't.

>> d: []
== []
>> loop 2 [append d [1 [fname]]]
== [1 [fname] 1 [fname]]
>> same? second d fourth d
== true

Yeah we already determined  that.  Thanks Brian.

Cool :) I couldn't tell based on the messages above.

Yeah Steeve keyed in on the problem.

Is there a way to modify an object (adding and removing components) 
at runtime without rebuild it from scratch ?

I remember an old thread in the mailing list abut this argument, 
but I cannot find it..

not it's impossible in R2 but doable in R3

in R3 do:   append my-object new-var

wrong, in R3: append my-object [new-var: none]

R3 is going to be my nightmare :-)

when i need to simulate extendable objects in R2, i use blocks in 
replacement.

I'm trying to find a workaroud using first object , second object 
... but it doesn't seems to work

it can't

I'm writing a function that  replace every set-word in a block of 
code with a compoment of an object, so I have to build the object 
in one single pass

(so every words become local for default)

are there inner blocks which contain set-words too or not ?

yes there are

so you can't use the construct function on the primary bock...

except if the local vars are all set in the primary one too