World: r3wp

ok, so I get list of words .. but can I export (write to file) sources/definitions 
of functions ?  >> source somefunc<< prints it but I would need to 
get a string

aha Will I will try

sorry, word-block/list not /dif ..

yes, I agree... I am asking because if this could be done then you 
could use rebol in a same way as smalltalk and factor are which are 
"image based" languages ... this brings some interesting usages..

for example a server that can replicate itself... or save it's state 
and then run from exactly same state, or in games, editing them without 
restarting... editing "live image" which should be possible because 
you can redefine words in rebol, but then you need to save whole 
current state.

(that was the reason why I wanted to embed smalltalk into game engine, 
but I would much rather do this with rebol)

aha!!!

print join mold first :bbbb mold second :bbbb ; bbbb is some func

Will, your word works great :)

I will experiment a little with this when I find time, thanks all

hm.. what am I speaking crazy stuff, or where did you all go? :)

Janko, I had left to shower and eat lunch.  Sorry, but you need to 
check the status on the left.  Often times we just disappear.  That 
is kinda what is nice about Altme in a sense is that you know when 
someone is available or here now by the status.

:) I was joking .. no problem at all

Janko, the short answer is that you can... except for bindings. (So, 
in general, no, you can't just save the current state of an app, 
unless the app is designed for that from the start.)

can I ask what does it mean "except for bindings" ? you mean like 
native code libs (bindings) .. or binding in rebol sense which I 
heard about, but don't fully understand what it means

He means rebol bindings. This is a good read on bindings: http://www.fm.tul.cz/~ladislav/rebol/contexts.html

where is Ladislav? buuuu 8(

Henrik, thanks I will read it

Was CHMOD ever implemented for the FTP scheme in REBOL 2?

I don't think so, no.

That is, it was never built in. Somebody might've hacked it in for 
their particular situation.

ok, thanks

This is continued from the talk we had with BrianH in the R3 group.. 
but it's R2 code so  (about do/next)

paralel doer:

para-do: func [ codes- /local codes cnt values code- value- all-done 
] [
  codes: copy codes-
	cnt: length? codes
  values: make block! cnt
	loop cnt [ append values none ]
	until [ 
		all-done: true
		repeat idx cnt [
			code: pick codes idx
			if not empty? code [
				set/any [ value- code- ] do/next code
				codes/:idx: code-
				values/:idx: value-
				all-done: false
				print mold value-
			]
		] all-done
	] 
	values
]

usage example: 

>> codes: [ [ a: 12 + 23 b: a + 100 c: b * a ] [ t: join "aaa" join 
"bbb" "ccc" find t "b"  ] ] 
>> para-do codes
35
aaabbbccc
135
bbbccc
4725
== [4725 "bbbccc"]
(it collects results of all blocks when done and returns them)

I wonder if we can do MAP-REDUCE in REBOL :)

(it throws error on expressions that retun unset like print .. because 
value- get's undef, but it can probably be made to work)

I think it should be perfectly possible

also.. something para-do could be made so that it would send code 
blocks to multiple rebol processes via tcp or pipes maybe and collect 
results back

it can do 1000 blocks with 5 expressions in 0.03s on my (little slower) 
comp , 10.000 in 0.25s , 100.000 in 3.75s ... so it seems stepping 
the blocks is not horribly slow, and I am sure my func could be made 
better

clearly, it could be faster but i'm not sure of the interest of such 
thing. If i want a small granularity in a process, i build tiny functions 
and push them in a to-do stack

I am also not yet sure how/if this could be usefull :), but as I 
said it's very impressive that you can do that (I have to go to sleep 
now)

I want to partition a block in place ,that is wohout copy.. 
e.g. 
blk: [ red green blue plum apple orange ]
partition  blk 3
>>  [ [red green blue] [ plum apple orange ] ]

without

while [not empty? blk] [
	blk: change/part blk copy/part blk span
]

Put that in a function.

thanks I have that

but I am interested in manageing without copy

Sorry, change/part -> change/part/only

if it is possible

ouch Brian, one second more and it was my reply :)

You have to copy - you are turning one series into three (in your 
example).

missing: span span

Right :)

unless [empty? blk: change/part blk copy/part blk span span]
(unless is a litlle faster than while)

just my 2 cents :)

Yes, but he wants it to repeat.

on large datasets a copyless repartitioning would be more efficent 
more like adding pointers to delimiters within the block

If you want it to speed up, use until.