World: r3wp

http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/rambo.r?id=-4777&

Delete does not take a port spec

( Gabriele are you still reviewing Rambo submissions? )

I think that can be worked around by using REMOVE on the port opened 
on the directory that contains the file... worth testing maybe.

Anyway, yes. Ticket is now #4401.

Would this stop rebol working ? http://downloads.zdnet.com/abstract.aspx?docid=2111429&tag=nl.e530

i don't think so.

Henrik, what's this bug regarding 'encloak that you have mentioned 
on your blog?

encloak uses SHA1 I think

Graham, link? I can't remember that blog entry.

This is BSD C code for SHA 224 - 512 ... can someone review this 
to see if we can include in 2.7.8 ?

http://www.hmkdesign.dk/rebol/files/category-rebol-3.html

http://www.ouah.org/ogay/sha2/

I can't remember what the bug was. It may have been fixed in the 
meantime.

I looked on rambo and saw no entries for encloak

35kb of C source

I think the issue was around R3's encloak, not R2.

oh .ok

sorry if I will propose a nonsense, or if the solution already exists, 
but - when using REBOL for data extraction (using parse) and forming 
a block or CSV as a result, I often come to the need of append-only-if-the-item-does-not-exist-already, 
so using following idiom:

if not found? find target value [append target value]


What about adding /not refinement (or other name), so that I could 
append only unique values?

Also - is there any way of how to easily find out, if the block is 
unique? Should I apply 'unique, and compare the length before and 
after? Pity 'unique has /skip refinement, but does not have /compare 
one (as 'sort has), so that I can't set, when I have e.g. record 
of 5 items, I want to 1) set the record size (/skip) 2) select fields, 
upon which we want to define uniquess - could be an integer offset, 
or a block of positions [1 3] ... 'sort allows at least the offset 
via /compare

Two partial workarounds to your first issue Petr (I've used them 
both or various data sets):


1.  simply APPEND each time, then when the set is complete use UNIQUE 
to deduplicate

2.  if not alter target value [append target value]
   this ensures that VALUE is the last entry in TARGET

2 is more efficient, since UNIQUE always copies.

but as for efficiency, does the alter really differs from "if not 
found? find?"

ALTER removes a value, if it's found.

which is the reverse, but the same, as appending only in the case, 
if not found :-)

ALTER is not really useful in its current form.

I found not use ALTER as it's not native.. I usually use the solution 
UNIQUE where the block is not much large, but if efficiency is needed, 
I would just go with:

unless find blk val [append blk val]

(I found = I would)

I don't want to add new refinements for such a easy to do solutions 
as they would slow every APPEND a little bit.

it is just, at least for me, when using append at all - it is very 
often used idiom ...

some people prefer this construct

all [
	find blk val
	append blk val
]

that would be ANY instead of ALL.

oh yeah :)

two characters shorter than Oldes' solution

that's programmer's solution, but it does not read as nicely as - 
if not found? find blk val [append blk val] :-)

yes, Oldes' version reads even nicely ...

Who says?

These are just idioms ...

I always have to think twice or more when i come across 'unless :)

And I have to think more than twice, when using combination of NOT 
ALL, NOT ANY :-)

Can I somehow get a difference of two blocks, with different sizes? 
Trying to avoid loops, but I will use loop most probably anyway ...

blk1 structure: [contract user tarif]
blk2 structure: [contract user street town tarif]


I know there are functions like intersect/difference, they even have 
/skip refinement, but those most probably can't treat different record 
sizes?

Graham, you are not english native speaker? For me it's easy.. I 
learned that UNLESS = IF NOT and so I use it:) http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/IF9.cfm

I remember UNLESS from extended basic of ZX Spectrum. And I lowed 
the word itself, dunno why :-)

Are you looking for this?

>> difference [contract user tarif] [contract user street town tarif]
== [street town]

or what result do you expect?

no, sorry ... those are just structures, but blocks contain real 
data, hundreds and thousands of records ...

but never mind, I will use loop and look-up, no problem, just laziness 
:-)

unless is one more character than if not .. so why use it?

I guess, that what Pekr wants should be implemented carefully, otherwise 
it may end up being slow...

Graham.. that's easy... because UNLESS is faster then IF NOT

I really think, again, that  'append-or-insert-only-if-the-item-does-not-exist-already 
 should be a native in R3.


its a function MOST of us would use on a frequent basis.  it would 
be very usefull and its very powerfull with a /skip refinement

agreed ...

As opposed to that, my opinion is, that it should not be a native, 
since no significant speedup against a mezzanine would be observable