r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

World: r3wp

[Script Library] REBOL.org: Script library and Mailing list archive

I haven't had time to review your recent handiwork, and may not until 
after next week. If you don't get any response, ping again here as 
a reminder, and thanks for all your hard work Brian.
Gregg; It turns out the 'hard' part of the work is learning enough 
REBOL to describe it to others.  More fun than work and I may be 
getting more out than I'm putting in.  :)
Agreed Brian.
RE the discussion back in May about improving the Library's display 
of scripts when colorized.....

We've adopted Geomol's color scheme for the live Library.....Thanks. 
John. It looks great!
For everybody...no more mucking with date formatting...  Use Chris' 
%form-date.r from the library.

form-date now/precise "%c"  full REBOL timestamps nicely formatted. 
 "%s" added for seconds with nanosecond precision.  (Precision...not 
accuracy)  All your dates and times can line up now.  :)
Redirected from I'm new...javascript time

Integer date and times are a problem without some real mucking about.
Graham;  I just did a search, Gregg posted date-to-epoch in the DZone 
snippets. Along with epoch-to-date.  Looks like standard run of the 
mill world class Gregg code.  :)
Sorry.  Slight misread, seconds and milliseconds... What? I'm only 
out by 3 orders of magnitude.  :)
Close enough for jazz :-)
I liked this one from Dave Mills NTP RFC1305...
There will exist an 200-picosecond interval,

henceforth ignored, every 136 years when the 64-bit field will be 
and thus considered invalid.
And, of course, if you use UNIX date format [seconds from 1-jan-1970], 
you have to politely pretend the dozen or so leap seconds inserted 
since then do not exist.
If you are a member of this Altme world, then you may also have been 
a member of its predeccessors: REBOL World and REBOL2 world.

There is now a private archive of those worlds on REBOL.org:

However, you will only see them if your REBOL.org membership profile 
says you were a member -- they were *private* worlds, so we cannot 
make the posts publicly available.

If you were a member of either world and want access to the archive, 
please just ask -- just let me know your World user name and your 
REBOL.org member name.
Let's look at bit closer at the REBOL header block and licenses. 
In the library (http://www.rebol.org), REBOL scripts have a library 
entry in the header, and it contains a field named "license" with 
about 10 different possibilities. Is it enough to specify the license 
like that, or do we have to put a license text and/or warranty in 
the header of our scripts? Not just in the library but in general. 
Does anyone know, or should we ask an attorney?
I'd like to see this as a system/standard/script field.  For rebol.org 
there could be helper forms with some common choices but I'd also 
like to see it support url! in the submission validator (although 
that may have longevity problems).

Would system/standard/script/Rights, /License and /Disclaimer (or 
Warranty) cover all the legalese?
There is big problem with rebol.org library if you are using different 
than ascii chars. I've just submited a script which contains latin2 
chars and it's not uploaded correctly as there were converted to 
utf8 (so the script will not be working correctly as the chars are 
used in parse.
I will try to upload the script directly (not from webform to see 
it it's deformed as well)
no.. it's not working:(
the script is correct for download http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/view-script.r?script=code-colorizer.r
but not for display.
I've added encoding: 'cp1252 into header... it's up to rebol.org 
now to use such an info and convert such a script into utf8 before 
displaying it in html
Thanks Oldes.

Part of the problem is that all pages served from REBOL.org are served 
even if a specific needs a different charset.
We need to make that more flexible :-)
How many people use the Desktop Librarian?   If not, why?  If so, 

And if the answer to the first question is more than 1, who would 
be up for a documented experiment in REBOL/Agile team development? 
 It would be starting from a 60%ish completed RebGUI app with big 
big plans (and a potential complete rewrite to fit with a could-be-soon 
Revault).  There are definite and defineable 'pieces' involved.

R2 mind.  See; I dropped the ball a few months back and need a reason 
slash motivation to restart as rebol.org is too valuable a resource 
to not.  :)
If what I know about Agile is anywhere near close, we'd also need 
a "customer" or two.  To be open, honest and critical.   But those 
individuals, while having an idea of what they want to see, can't 
really be exisiting Library Team members ... I don't think.  Any 
Library Team members not involved in dev, would be the "management"
I don't use Desktop Librarian. I'm not absolutely sure why. Maybe 
because I don't use the desktop much. And why not that? Again, not 
absolutely sure. Because it feels a little weird!? Because it needs 
a Directory Opus (from Amiga) kind of tool!?
Plus ... if you can't tell; I've read Agile, never done Agile, but 
I think it fits as a counter balance to REBOL Cowboy.  Plus ... don't 
take me using the moniker Cowboy to mean a bad thing.  It has been 
the method of many a good piece of REBOL software, just perhaps not 
what  some IT managers want to see.
John;  Gabriele posted ropus.r to the library!  :)   I think it only 
needs a change to an OPEN/WAIT to be 2.7
Cool! I'll see, if I can find it...
Do you know, with what version it works?
Hm, from dec. 1999, so not supported for a long time.
I had it running on 2.7.6 Win98.  But it required a change of an 
OPEN/WAIT to OPEN/NO-WAIT.  It's from 2001 so ...
Other than Help flashing to quickly it seemed to operate ... perusal 
mode that is.
lol, ropus.r was for Core 2.0... heh. it says a lot that it still 
works though. (not that it does anything weird.)
I haven't used it for a long time, because it's out of date WRT content.
Looks like it was just updated thought. :-)
So it's a psychological and feature problem.
Feature problem with my old install that is. The new Refresh option 
is what was needed. Excellent.
Can anyone help with this problem with Sterling's Calendar application?
I thought it might be version related, but one of the VID versions 
I have exhibit the problem:
** Script Error: Cannot use multiply on none! value
** Where: edit-text
** Near: 2 * face/edge/size

Looks like this line is the problem:

        dp-area: area (dp-info/size - 4x0) ivory ivory edge [size: none] 
        with [show?: false ff: day: time: none]

Change to:

        dp-area: area (dp-info/size - 4x0) ivory ivory edge [size: 0x0] with 
        [show?: false ff: day: time: none]
Posted as a reply on REBOL.org as well.
Thanks Gregg....That seems to have done the trick:

I would like a way to search the script library for words in scripts, 
that would not return scripts that have those words in strings. I 
would use this function several times a week when researching function 
usage for my mezzanines work.
Just a search that filters out string!, file! and url! types would 
be fine. I am only interested in searching the various word and path 
Read above as: Just a search that filters out any-string! types would 
be fine. I am only interested in searching any-word! and *path! types.
Hmm... How to do that?
We need to know where a particular
1. Read script *and* Load script
2. Visit each item in the loaded block, recursively.
3. As each item is visited, check its type.

4. Depending somewhat on type, parse (in the READed script) to the 
molded item:
4.1  If it's a series, search for the "opener", eg. block! -> "["
4.2  If it's a non-series, search for it molded.
(oops.. incomplete post, sorry)
We need to know where a particular .. value is in the original source 
string (read from file).
4.3 (Cater for variations in molding, eg. strings in the source written 
as "..." can be molded {...} and vice versa, depending on length.)
Interesting idea. Brian. We could certainly weight the results so 
those with words in the body rather than strings etc are listed higher....In 
fact, we already do that as one of the ranking factors.
Let me think about it....