World: r3wp

Sorry about the previous msg - still getting used to Altme :o

I'm taking the examples right from the URL in my previous msg. Is 
there a simple and bullet-proof way to enter the code at the REBOL 
console?

You should be able to somewhat safely paste multiline code, but otherwise 
it's best for single line entry. Also note that the console does 
not behave identically on different OS'es.

have you tried the 

    do read clipboard://

expression?

When developing scripts, I like to use my favourite editor and hook 
up REBOL to a keyboard shortcut, which is a nice and quick way to 
study longer REBOL scripts.

Or, if you want to examine what exactly is in the clipboard, you 
can:

    print read clipboard://

@Ladislav  nope! but I will ... :)

Is there an emacs mode for REBOL that you guys are aware of?

BTW, I just C&P the code into the console, and BINGO!!!  :))

There should be an emacs mode available. I have never used it, though.

@Henrik  What???  Are you ill? LOL ...

I don't use emacs, hence I don't need the REBOL emacs mode. :-)

@Henrik  That's my point !!  :))

Anyway ... thanks you guys!!

@Duke:  It works in the console if you put the opening bracket of 
the final block on the same line as the closing bracket of the previous 
block, like it is in the example

@Izkata I see that! Thanks. My problem was that CORE's "line continuation" 
symbol - [ - was confusing me. Is there a way to change that to another 
symbol? I was getting it mixed up with the code's own [ and ].

Have you investigated Core System object? It's interesting. Try: 
"help system" :-) Hmm, I thought it might be there, but it is not:

>> help system/console
SYSTEM/CONSOLE is an object of value:
   history         block!    length: 2
   keys            none!     none
   prompt          string!   ">> "
   result          string!   "== "
   escape          string!   "(escape)"
   busy            string!   "|/-\"
   tab-size        integer!  4
   break           logic!    true
   lookup          function! Console filename completion lookup.

It would have been too good to be true, if it had been there  :D 
How would those values be changed from the console? Like say the 
tab-size?

system/console/tab-size: 8

:-)

it is just normal object, so you can acces its value by path.

So let's say, that we have kind of Windows REBOL registry in here 
:-) A system structure, you can access to get some configuration, 
etc.

The one thing you do not seem able to change is the [ continuation 
char

just try e.g. system/console/prompt: "-->"

in fact, we have two continuation chars, [, and {, and both make 
sense - the first one is the continuation of a program, or a block, 
the secong one is for a multiple line string

@Pekr  It might make sense to have 2 line continuation chars, but 
IMHO, it makes no sense to have those chars *the same* as symbols 
you'd find in REBOL code. It can become too confusing -especially 
for beginners. I suppose that is the reason why the console/prompt 
is set to >> and not {{ or ]] :)

This is a misunderstandin, Duke. #"[" is not a "line continuation" 
symbol

It is simply so, that you can continue, because the interpreter "knows" 
you did not enclose the block yet

use

    do read clipboard://

to input any number of lines

Example:

1
+
2

>> do read clipboard://
== 3

@Ladislav I don't understand what you mean? I might have used the 
wrong terminology - sure! MY corcern is that IF I had a choice, I 
would NOT want to see a { symbol at the beginning of a multi-line 
REBOL snippet, entered at the console. So how does what your advise 
above relate to MY concern?? :)

The REBOL console is trying to be helpful in indicating that at least 
one "]" or "}" needs to be supplied to complete an expression.

But I'm with Duke -- more helpful visual indicators would be nice; 
as would the ability to override the default ones.

@Sunanda  I see! So the "[" character is simply a hint. Wouldn't 
it have been more intuitive to have used the "]" char - to indicate 
that an open '"[" needs to be closed?? I'm glad that the LISP REPL 
doesn't do this - not the ones that i use anyway :)) But thanks! 
 You've cleared things up a bit....

The REBOL console is trying to be helpful in indicating that at least 
one 

]" or "}" needs to be supplied to complete an expression." - yes, 
and that is where I wanted to point out, that there is no "line continuation 
symbol", since what is going on is not that the interpreter encountered 
a "line continuation symbol" (it did not), but that it expect you 
to close the open block

But, OTOH, if you really do want to write an expression like

1
+
2

in the interpreter console, you can use this trick:

do [
1
+
2
]

I would NOT want to see a { symbol at the beginning of a multi-line 
REBOL snippet, entered at the console.
 - that is easy

What exactly it is you *would want* to see?

@Ladislav Thanks for clearing that up!  At the moment, I'm simply 
reading http://www.rebol.com/docs/words/wswitch.htmland trying out 
the snippets to do 2 things:
1. Learn to use the REBOL console
2. Learn REBOL syntax etc


Entering those multiline snippets is what was a problem - until now. 
The console prints a "[" after each CR. For a noob, this chars looks 
and feel just like the ones IN the code. :))

I do understand, but that does not answer my question. As far as 
I am concerned, I use the

    do read clipboard://

approach when trying some code snippets

But, anyway, what it is you would want to see?

here's a cheap'n'cheerful console replacement that concatenates an 
expression until it reads a blank line. Then it executes it. (Two 
blank lines to exit).

Feel free to change the console prompt characters.

my-con: func [
  /local
   in-line
   in-buff
   err
][
forever [
    in-buff: copy ""
    in-line: copy ""
    forever [ 
      in-line: ask "In > "
      if in-line = "" [break]
      append in-buff join " " in-line
      ]
 if in-buff = "" [break]
 err: none
 if error? err: try [print ["Out > " do in-buff] true] [
    print ["Oops > " mold disarm err]
    ]
 ]
 exit
]

Duke - I think that in fact it is not much of an issue? How often 
do you use multiline expression in REBOL interactive console session? 
It does not allow you to go back anyway, so ...

@Sunanda Thanks! Can't wait to try it out! :)

@Ladislav  [quote]do read clipboard://[/quote]


I see! I'm on a Linux Xubuntu box - so I just highlight the text, 
and then right-click paste it into the REBOL console. I get to "see" 
the code, then the results, after a CR. Your method works OK, but 
all I get is the results -- don't seem like "a full meal deal" :)) 
Thanks ...

@Sunanda  Works like a HOT DAMN!!  Thanks! BTW, the command history 
still works after the result is printed - so a person can go back 
and re-do everything, and fix errors.

This code:

val: 123
switch type?/word [
    integer! [print "it's integer"]
    decimal! [print "it's decimal"]
    date! [print "it's a date"]


produces an error msg in v2.7.8 Is it R3 speciffic? It is from the 
R3 docs, but it seemed fairly generic to me.

Looks like you are missing:

-- val after type?/word -- so REBOL knows which word's type  you 
are switching on
-- a closing ]
No idea why R3 is happy with that. This works for R2:

val: 123
switch type?/word val [
    integer! [print "it's integer"]
    decimal! [print "it's decimal"]
    date! [print "it's a date"]
   ]

Thanks Sunanda! Then there is an error in the docs at http://www.rebol.com/r3/docs/functions/switch.html.
Who do I alert?

I just did a "Help type? at the console, and got:

TYPE? value /word


Does this output not seem counter-intuitive to you guys? Especially 
when the syntax is:

TYPE?/word/ value   ; I used the / char to indicate an option


This tells me that the type? word is followed by an optional refinement, 
but always needs a "value" - in that order. The console help output 
seems to have it reversed. What do you think?

All the refinements are optional, it's a bit confusing for a beginner 
but otherwise it will be more confusing. Try:  help find

There are lots of refinement. HELP shows the normal usage and then 
the optional refinements and their arguments.

Hmm, looks that I forgot (once again) how to log in to the R3 docs.

Duke, refinements can have arguments as well, so the order as shown 
in the help is exactly the same as when you define a function header.