World: r3wp

your trouble is, that the evaluation of X doesn't have the same effect 
as if you replace X by its value. The evaluation of X only yields 
a set-word instead of setting anything. If you really want to set 
a word 'y, then there are two ways:

set x 'z

do compose [(x) 'z]

OK thanks,  I understand.  'set is simple.  I did not try  'do compose' 
until  now.  II tried 'do' and 'do reduce' without succes.

How about this one:

>> dir? http:/www.google.com/
** Access Error: Cannot connect to mail.pacific.net
** Where: open-proto
** Near: dir? http:/www.google.com/

Hm...  I think you got something stuck in your event system somewhere...

>> dir? http://www.google.com
connecting to: www.google.com
== false

Your right...

>> system/version
== 1.2.57.3.1

(you were right about the editor too, 1 night was too little)

http:// not http:/

>> dir? http://www.google.com/
== false

The devils are in the details!

Ryan: What are you trying to achieve?  (Or is it humor that has eluded 
me?)

Just curious if it looked up the site for a directory. part of my 
rebol editor I am working on.

Gabriele mean that in your post at 5:30 am you miss a slash in the 
url (http:/ instead of http://)

Yep, that was it.

does sort use bubble sort?

I mean - for sort/compare

I will have following block structure:

blk: [[name "pekr" other [cz "aaa" en "bbbb"]] [name "adiana" other 
[en "ddd" cz "aab"]]]

using sort/compare blk func [a b] [a/other/cz < b/other/cz], it will 
survive different location of 'cz field, as it cleverly uses path 
navigation. That is nice. I just wonder about different case ... 
let's say I have object templates, which change once per period of 
xy months ... I also have IOS, so lots of record synced around. My 
plan was, that each object would carry its version info. I wonder 
what to do in case, where new object template version will extend 
object structure, e.g. adding phone-num field ...

If I would try to run sort, it would crash ... I wonder if I should 
check each object at its usage, and if instance is of older structure, 
update it first - adding new fields, not removing older ones (questionable, 
maybe they should be removed, or sort problem would not be gone anyway)

I don't think it uses bubble sort. That is a very slow algorithm. 
It's probably quick sort or shell sort.

I really liked its path understanding - so I don't need to keep fields 
at the same position. I like blocks better than objects :-)

You have to be careful using /compare. I don' t think it's good to 
use just a logic! value for the swap condition. I think you need 
to specity -1, 0, 1 as values... I forget, you must look it up.

by "crash" do you mean crashing the rebol interpreter ?

? dunno understand what you are talking about .... I tested it with 
few records and it worked ... I used example from rebol.com doc ...

do you have a simple example.

Logic! works fine if you have unique key values.  +1 0 -1 is for 
ensuring stable sorting when key values are not unique.

ah yes.. that's right. When you sort an already sorted list, some 
equal values would swap around sometimes.

(I should say keys, not values...)

(that's an unstable sort)

sort/compare/all/skip  -- will crash earlier versions of REBOL...One 
reason not to use blocks.
It should work with recent versions.  Is that your problem, Petr?

how do you remember that so quickly Sunanda ? (what's your indexing 
method?)

no, no Crashes, even with older version, but tested only with 3 records 
...

show us the simplest crashing example code

my "problem" was, I wante some kind of "tolerant" mode of sort, that 
it would not scream if some record would not contain field to test, 
so it would e.g. add those records to the end :-)

so not a crash, just a rebol error, then ?

yes, of course ...

it was me choosing incorrect word, sorry ...

I would say you have to write your own sort. I have done this... 
let's see.

I just wanted to load small text files (representing records) into 
block, then sort them. But as life goes on, your system evolves and 
I can imagine, that your e.g. Contact database will be extended by 
e.g. cell-phone2 record. But your previous records are already synced 
across tens of users. I wanted to sort and wondered, what to do about 
old records ...

I know it would be probably safer to rebuild all records, I just 
wondered if I could live without doing so ....

yeah, just pre-scan... if the cost is not too high. Is the record 
access slow ?

no, I think not .... I am waiting for RIF anyway ...

Anton -- I had to debug the problems with Sort/all/skip/compare  
-- code that worked on one platform, but failed on another. It got 
burned into the brain.

In Silesion group, late today I will post about what I have in plan 
and will "complain" a bit about IOS ... it is so primitive db vise, 
that it is not much usable ...

Petr, for fault tolerance, something like:

   sort/compare ...... func [a b] [ attempt [return a/x < b/x] return 
   false]

excelent - it does not return error, block is sorted, now I have 
to find out, what it did with record, which is missing field agains 
which I did compare ....

why is there "return false"?

hmm, that return false seems to change search results ...