World: r3wp

presumably when one transfer finishes, it could check the others 
and then render if they were all finished.  Do I need to poll?

the checkup loop was something like


you can do it that way too... but you might get into some strange 
stack issues, cause you end up handling  port messages from one port 
to another within the messaging stack... but I guess a simple test 
sould suffice to see if its stable or not.


in my case, the gui had to stay responsive, since the xfer-contexts 
had cancel methods, which interrupted any xfer in real-time, and 
the whole gui had to still handle events smoothly, like scrolling 
a huge list, while it was adding items to that list, as it parsed 
the return value from the google search engine  :-)

oops  hehe missing some lines there...

Does seem straight forward when you explain it like that :)

you verification could be something like:

unless all [ctx1/done? ctx2/done? ...] [ 
	;all done, do whatever
]

or using an integer with bit handling, it could be as simple as 

; a four bit setup
unless done-bits = 7 [
]

and to set individual "done" bits

xfer-context: [
  set-done: does[ 
     done-bits: done-bits OR power 2 index? find port-list self
  ]
]

:-)

usualy, when dealing with bits, it's better to use bitset!, all operations 
are faster (insertion, modification, search)

i noted that bitset! are mostly under rated by rebolers

I think it's about language compactness.

what do you mean ?

for non-compact languages like Rebol, users form their own compact 
subsets and tend to use them exclusively.

the bit example is just a 20 year old programming habit... hehehe 
 I do find the bit sets a bit awkwards...  but I use them profusely 
in parse... 
go figure... hehehe

So, better programmers will use more of the language than others. 
 Which is why it's a good idea to read other people's code :)

i use them not only in parse

i use them to build fast indexes for examples

So, C and Python are considered semi-compact languages, and C++ an 
anti-compact language.

I expect languages like REBOL and forth that expand their own dictionaries 
are not as compact as Python.

define compact.

cause syntactically, rebol has extremely few rules.

Compactness is a measure of how easily a design can fit inside one's 
head.

Well, I've got it working mostly.  sometimes it doesn't kick off 
an async function ... and seems to need a wait here and there :(

REBOL is very compact. Everything is either a word or a value, and 
even words can be values.

Graham, by your standards REBOL 3 is more compact than REBOL 2, but 
maybe that is just to me.

Once you start adding Draw into it though, I lose the whole. With 
R2 there is also the broken port model, design flaws and legacy stuff, 
so I lose the big picture a lot quicker. Python I don't know much 
about, and C is getting more complex all the time. I guess it depends 
on the head.

LOL.... the toplogy of the head determines if you can wrap it around 
a language...

Yes I would put view as part of REBOL.

Here is a post about the read-io function for newbies.  http://www.tretbase.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=55&p=128#p128

Paul, what are the issues with 'read-io on network ports?

The only think I recall is that Holger use to express (this was obviously 
years ago) that we shouldn't use read-io for network ports and instead 
use copy instead.

I remember Carl writing, that here is no need anymore to use read-io 
and write-io after a certain version.

But I use it still sometimes to see when data could not be written, 
because there is no space anymore  left on disk

IIRC, for a server I did, I had to use read-io, don't rememeber why 
but it made it simpler in a complex and timed server multi-port management 
loop (direct tcp socket handling).

the only case where you need read-io and write-io currently is if 
you are using async-modes. sqlab's may be a good case too. i don't 
know of others at this point.

Why is that Gabriele?

I'll be implementing an async server soon so any info is good info 
in that regard.

because async-modes is a hack in rebol, and only works with read-io 
and write-io.

Ahhh, good to know Gabriele.

I hope you can expound on that when you get a chance.

Hi.

Let's see this code:

toto: [25 10 14]

renv: func [b [block!]]
[
 foreach Val b [ print Val + 1]
]

when I call this function, with "renv [ toto] ". I receive an error 
message because the elements in toto are viewed as word!, not as 
integer! by Rebol.

you've got a block inside a block

?

you can't add 1 to a block

renv [ toto ]

and toto has no value

ok, but when I use the same code without insert it in a function, 
it work perfectly

renv reduce [ toto ] => renv [ [ 1 2 3 ]]

the code :

toto: [25 10 14]
foreach Val toto [ print Val + 1]

work because elements in toto  are considered as integers.

and so will

renv toto