World: r3wp

I have one question .. I don't want somebody to surprise me tomorrow 
on talk about rebol... if you use the "with" pattern for example 
for pop protocol

with-pop-do: func [ mbox addr code ] [ 
    set :mbox open addr
    do code
    close get :mbox
]

with-pop-do 'box get-pop-addr [
    pages: "something"
]

and define a variable/word "pages" in the block like I did .. this 
word changes the global binding probably? which is not very good 
because it might owerride some other binding ... am I correct and 
is there some elegant way to not introduce such negatiev side of 
this otherwise elegant pattern?

Something like this?

use [pages] [
	with-pop-do 'box get-pop-addr [
		pages: "something"
	]
]

aha.. interesting.. I never knew what use does

I could also use "use" in definition of with-pop-do so that the external 
code is most beautifull

thanks a lot

you can also wrap stuff in contexts, but it requires that you specify 
your vars as set-words.

@Janko:  How did your talk about Rebol go today?

Brock: it went okeyish ... otherwise it was great and I did sew some 
pushed out eyes (from few python programmers) towards the end. The 
problem was I had very programmer / code - centric presentation , 
where I was hoping to give (better) coders some clue what and how 
REBOL is different, but when I asked how many of them were programmers 
it was just like 20% or less . So I had somewhat hard time trying 
to show details of code and tons of code examples imagining that 
the most of listeners will have no clue whatsoever about what I'm 
talking ...

I see now that I should just focused my thoughts on those guys who 
were programmers instead of seeing all the nonprogrammers not understanding 
a thing I was saying. Basically I missjudged the audience. And there 
would probably be more programmers if there werent two very interesting 
talks with known names at the same time as mine.

some pushed out eyes
 <- I would have loved to see that :-)

but overall, if you make just 2-3 people interested at the same time, 
that's a big thing for us. :-)

I am not joking about "pushed out eyes" ... I saw 2 that were programmers 
that were towards the end really intenselly looking at code I was 
showing and how I'll explain it.  


the whole thing about read http:// read %file ... open pop:// and 
process it as serries qute impressed one guy 


When I ended a couple of other programmers aproached me and asked 
me how this can be installed and if it's free etc .. and one pythonista 
said that email sending really impressed him, but otherwise he doesn't 
know yet .. there were also questions like "why this and not python" 
and "community size" and I had some explaining to do about code is 
data / data  is code big deal

It makes me think that the process of downloading and installing 
REBOL is a great demo in itself.

Yes, I was thinking of putting the scripts there but then a lot less 
people would see it.. you know how people are .. first and foremost 
LAZY

When I asked how many were programmers and only 4 raised hands I 
almost wanted to stop talking because from that point on almost all 
slides are code and at the end I was trying to look at concrete scripts 
which I was worried also coders won't understand so quickly after 
finding out at rebol

not almost wanted, but serriously considered it .. but it was ok 
at the end .. it was a little stupid to all the nonprogrammers probably

I posted a link to screencast of slides in advocacy

Many scientific talks are divided in two parts: One for the masses 
and one for the experts.

If I knew  how it would be I would prepare more light talk , with 
some cool stuff , only little code and more visual .. like doing 
a gui to post message on twitter all in few lines and typed in front 
of them . I had demo of this when I was preparing for talk

I haven't been to many scietific talks so I didn't know :)

(I also only learned this recently)

I will be playing with some erlang soon , did anyone maybe yet work 
anything on the BERT serialisation .. http://bert-rpc.org/(it's 
the binary erlang term serialisation). BERT-RPC based on it also 
is very minimalistic , binary (so you can send over images or anything) 
, and has some really cool features ?

Talks often dont' go as planned Janko. I'm sure you did fine. 


For a less technical audience, I try to focus on how little code 
it takes to do useful things; and how readable that code can be. 
Having some simple GUI examples is important, because normal people 
don't want console apps. For programmers, I emphasize that REBOL 
isn't really a programming language; it's a messaging language. As 
Carl has said "It was designed for the semantic exchange of information 
between people and machines." So it's never REBOL compared to Python, 
or Ruby, but compared to those languages plus XML or JSON.

I haven't seen anything on BERT, but Maarten has done some Erlang 
and may know.

It was ok.. I was not sooo satisfied with situation but I was satisfied 
on how I handeled it and it was ok.

One collegue smalltalker that we meet at previous barcamp wrote me 
on twitter something like "this is bloody usefull :-)" after seeing 
the slides and code examples screencast on internet.

I often find myself thinking about, how to categorize REBOL among 
other programming languages. I think, it's how the language wants 
us to make sentences and not just give commands, one on each line. 
In REBOL, we write:

insert back tail series my-value


and it feels natural. In other languages, you would do something 
like:

int sz = length (series);
Series *ptr = &series[sz - 1];
insert (ptr, my_value);

You could maybe do:

insert ( &series[length (series) - 1], my-value);


but it's just far from being as elegant as in REBOL. So most languages 
are like simple commands all the time, one after each other. With 
REBOL we make sentences. It's like a huge step up from many traditional 
programming languages.

Yes. I think of this aspect as combing the best elements from Forth 
and Lisp/Logo in a natural way. That is, lists (blocks) are the foundation, 
and you build up a vocabulary to do what you want. It also encourages 
us to structure and doc things a little more, compared to Forth; 
but you have the freedom to express things any way you want. It's 
a very different view from Python, where (my opinion), the goal is 
to make all programs look the same, no matter what the problem domain 
is.

Even with a simple example like the one you gave, I might add a couple 
funcs to make the intent even clearer. e.g.

insert-from-tail: func [
    series [series!] 
    value  
    index  [integer!]
] [
    insert skip tail series negate abs index value
]

insert-before-tail: func [
    series [series!] 
    value  
][
    insert-from-tail series value 1
]

insert-before-tail series my-value

yes, this is very nice part .. I like that most things are expressions 
that you can combine together

Is someone using REBOL with Gmail? I was trying this: http://mail.rebol.net/maillist/msgs/44246.html
but it does not work (I think that REBOL's esmtp scheme is not responding 
on STARTTLS command as described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STARTTLS

or is it fault of the Stunnel?

I think it's the right time to start writing some schemes for R3

I remember from Factor irc where they tried to make smtp compat with 
gmail that gmail does something a little different that with regular 
ssl connections. I think it starts without ssl and initiates it in 
the middle of communications or something like that

Can confirm I also failed to get stunnel to work with REBOL while 
following the advice in that post, Oldes.....Sorry, that's not much 
help, is it?

I posted the changes needed somewhere to get esmtp to work with gmail 
.... needs R/command though.

This script http://accessories.s3.amazonaws.com/hotmailer.r


uses a secure pop protocol to login to hotmail and download messages, 
and remove attachments.  Should work with gmail.

Speed or safety?  that is the question.

>> to-integer ""
== 0
>> to-decimal ""
** Script Error: Invalid argument:
** Where: to-decimal
** Near: to decimal! :value

>> to-decimal "0"
== 0.0

>> to-decimal "0 "
** Script Error: Invalid argument: 0
** Where: to-decimal
** Near: to decimal! :value


now it seems to me that if you're going to allow string input to 
'to-decimal then the most likely instances of this type of data is 
where it has been parsed in or comes in via a form and so it should 
by default handle whitespaces

In R3, the answer was safety:
>> to-integer ""
** Script error: content too short (or just whitespace)
** Where: to to-integer
** Near: to integer! :value
>> to-decimal ""
** Script error: content too short (or just whitespace)
** Where: to to-decimal
** Near: to decimal! :value

You can clean up input. Accepting invalid input is another matter 
- that way leads to exploits.

as long as it is consistent

Anyone run the Arm version of core on one of these plug computers 
?  http://www.globalscaletechnologies.com/p-22-sheevaplug-dev-kit-us.aspx

I can think of lots of uses for them if they ran core ...

Some guy got Arc to run on one of these and setup a web server

that is a cool server form factor  :-)

hi, i would like to know if R2 and R3 have a scheme for LDAP ?