World: r3wp

to-binary [1 1 1] should do #{010101} but doesn't work for me in 
A96, is it intended? Documentation tells should work.

Isiit possible to set length of binarx datatype somehow?

I understand it, that this is an intended change

(there are reasons, why the conversion you mention does not look 
correct)

Especially shorten integer to binary representation to 32 bit only

Maybe only copy/part last halve do it.

possibility to set the length of the binary datatype - aha, yes, 
copy/part can yield a shorter binary, another way is to use the Remove 
function

good hint thanks

or, the Clear function, ...

May Clear work partially?

example: head clear at #{01020304} 3

OK original idea was to use second halve but anyway good to remember 
;)

second half is just at #{01020304} 3

Why I see the more difficult solution first, THX Ladislav!

yet another trick.
>> to-binary to-tuple [1 2 3]
== #{010203}

Pavel, the documentation was converted from the R2.3 Core manual, 
and not all of the docs have been rewritten for R3 yet. If there 
is a discrepancy between the behavior and the online manual, and 
this discrepancy isn't already mentioned in CureCode, then assume 
the docs are wrong.

Jerry, would running inside screen be an option? as a temporary workaround 
of course.

no, the screen will be closed.

i mean the "screen" command

you can detach and reattach at any time.

my company has a protocol, the admin just follow the protocol and 
leave the serious issue to me. they said "REBOL is not in the list 
that they should maintain"

Ok, I will try it.

screen -d -m /path/to/rebol args

thanks Grbriele

you're welcome

My system is developed in R3. To be honest with you, they don't like 
it. Now with the launch issue, they have more reason to complain 
about REBOL.

well... it is daring to do anything with R3 at this point... :)

Thanks Gabriele, your method with screen seems to work.

I know R3 is still in alpha. I just love it too much.

i can't blame you...

Gabriele, you are a life saver. I was arguing with the admin just 
a few minitues ago, now the problem is gone with your method. Thanks 
to you. I owe you one.

Thanks to Peterwood too. Maybe REBOL should have the spawn function 
too. :-)

UDP is not supported in R3, right?

Poste two blogs: Some experience with R3 extensions & TCP sequence 
diagram. See:
www.robertmuench.de/blog

Robert - post your Extensions blog article to Extensions group in 
R3 Chat, for Carl to notice. Maybe he will get some ideas for further 
enhancing/simplifying work with Extensions ...

Robert - btw - wrt port/device signalling - http://www.rebol.net/wiki/TCP_Port_Details

Nobody has written a UDP scheme for Rebol3 yet. I believe at the 
moment the only comms scheme is http.

We can't, it has to be coded by Carl or someone with the source because 
of the API calls.

or via an extension

Via the host code, actually. We can't do device extensions yet, but 
we can ad device types to the host code.

How good is the current networking implementation in R3?  Any notable 
bugs?  I'm looking to build a OPC Server in R3.

OPC?

http://www.opcfoundation.org/

http://www.opcfoundation.org/Default.aspx/01_about/01_whatis.asp?MID=AboutOPC

well, ports appear to have bugs, but are largely feature complete. 
the "problem" is that they are untested.

where's the port code placed? Host code, or kernel?

what do you mean by port code ? it's hard coded

I mean C layer to port code ....

Henrik, any of those bugs that are notable?  Someting significant 
enough to possibly deter development?

The ones that are found are in Curecode.