World: r3wp

I use a .cmd file myself ... to build my sources and then run them.

But doc has set up cheyenne.r so that you can either run it , or 
use it in encap.

I will look at cheyenne.r , thanks

Janko: re your #include question: you should try INCLUDE, seriously

it solves exactly your problem

you always can do: INCLUDE %file, which is an equivalent of DO %file, 
except for the fact, that it includes everything needed

...and if you want to just save the file, you use INCLUDE/LINK %my-input.r 
%preprocessed-output.r

Sunanda, the "#include: :do" suggestion won't work as #include is 
an issue! not a word! ... I like the line of thought though.

#include: :do surely isn't possible, it would be possible only if 
we used the *include* alternative

Ladislav: I will try your include

Thanks, Ashley.....

    loop 100 [print "I should test my ideas before publishing them."]

It would not work for me anyway as I use other PREBOL syntax as well. 
Personally I like the issues for such a syntax. I use PREBOL for 
single projects scripts and 'require spec in the script's header 
for other scripts/projects which are required for the single script/project.

The difference between the 'require and the script's #include is, 
that in the header I use only projects/script name and or version 
and not relative path as one has to do with the #include.

...as one has to do with #include...
 - it depends...

In R3 I should probably replace it with modules. Your include.r enables 
that?

Carl wrote, that R3 modules don't support include at this time, check 
the http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Inclusion_Methodsand http://www.rebol.net/wiki/INCLUDE_documentation
texts

(maybe you find what you need)

I have what I need :) I'm just not sure why the #include should be 
replaced. BTW.. I have one own addition into PREBOL - #include-block 
(which includes data as a block as it's with #include-binary)

(I mean the usage of issues for preprocessing directives)

undestood

Also my preprocessor adds comments based on script headers so if 
I include foreign script, the name of the author is present. Like 
for example here: http://box.lebeda.ws/~hmm/rebol/gif_latest.r

the headers: yes, that looks like making sense in case the file is 
meant to be published as text

Anybody know a workaround for this?

from rebcmdview.exe and/or old desktop:

REBOL []
print length? read/lines http://www.google.com	;; works
print length? read/lines http://www.rebol.com	;; works
print length? read/lines https://www.google.com	;; works
halt

11
242
11

encapsulate (encmdface.exe) above and run the exe:

11
242
** Access Error: Invalid port spec: https://www.google.com
** Near: print length? read/lines https://www.google.com
halt
** Press enter to quit...

happens on any https page

Yes, check to see if https is installed.

Unless you downloaded the very latest 2.7.6 sdk, you will have that 
issue.  Easy to fix though.

I received this via email. ...rebol-sdk-cmd-z2l7np..... Is there 
another place to download the latest?

I'll send a message to Rebol.  I have 2.5.6. Thx.

I googled this http://www.rebol.net/builds/#section-1

not sure why there is no easily found direct link

Graham, that worked!!!! Thank you very much!!!

links  were broken on one of the updates to the site when R3 was 
given more space.

is there are problem with the latest builds of sdk  not  using the 

encap: [title "window title"]

properly?

Works on Windows with SDK 2.7.6.

not here.  windows 2.7.6  also.... very strange.

I tried with enface.exe and encmdview.exe  both give a  tile like 
 "REBOL -      "

Got that prefix only with source version. Once encapped (with enface), 
I get the proper title.

is your title: ""  assigned to anything in the header?

yes, it's assigned to the same name as in encap/title.

can you give me the full header? ... I'll just try it as-is to see 
if its a side-effect of the complete header... & or other encap options.

removing that header doesn't change anything as long as the 'encap 
header is there.

thanks ... knowing that the header was not in cause... alllowed me 
to find the true culprit .... some prerebol oditty which wrapped 
my entire code in a block (my fault in how I was using it).

strabge thing is that it was still running after encap... very weird.

(strange)

there is a nice feeling about seeing a 450kb 20 file REBOL script 
being linked as one source , then add another 400 kb of view encap 
code over it and it all works... 

850 kb of REBOL is a hell of a lot of code... I can't imagine how 
much code that would be in C  !!!

:-)

Some customers also get a little weirded out, when they see that 
my biggest programs take 2-3 seconds to download and about 0.1 seconds 
to install and start.

I've had that a few times, "where's the rest of the application ..."

I notice the icon of my encapped application displays info about 
rebol -company name, file version etc...

Anyway to get my info and file version for the App in there? If so 
-  Can this be done when encapping or to I need to change it afterward. 
It it indeed the icon that holds this info?

I guess I could use resource hacker...but is there a way to automate 
it during ENCAP

I wrote a function that called encap followed by reshack to solve 
the problem.

What did you use a reshack script?