World: r3wp

No, LOAD doesn't execute code, and the point of MOLD is to generate 
executable code. LOAD/all does something different.

The basic function to load REBOL code is DO. Most types are constructed, 
not literal. Even the scoping is procedural.

Gabriele, PIPE should definitely be included in R3, even if it's 
mezzanine. It would be worth it just to keep people from overloading 
READ with too much high-level crap. It would be mezzanine first in 
any case - we only convert functions to native once their behavior 
is agreed upon and we can say for sure that performance is worth 
it.

Is it alright with you if we try to adapt PIPE? Has it been posted 
publicly? I remember seeing it but can't remember if it was private.

An old time reboler like me still gets confused hence the question 
...

It would help if someone updated the docs ... or gave us write access 
to the help/doc wiki

Are you on R3 chat? That is the first step in getting write access 
to the R3 manual wiki.

The manual uses the same login.

I was on last night

before I crashed it with an invalid dataype error

Which platform?

Graham - if you have sufficient R3 Chat ranking (IIRC 40), you can 
log-in and edit R3 Docs ... authentication database is shared ...

And have you tried logging into the manual with your chat ID?

updated 'write documentation to remove the /binary

Cool. Does the READ doc have the same /binary option?

The other refinements look wrong as well.

Actually, can you update it to remove all optioins not supported 
by R3? READ and WRITE are low-level functions in R3.

Don't add proposed options either - we can add them when they become 
actual. The rebol.net wiki is the place to put proposals.

Regarding some of the above discussions of type?/word, I feel the 
confusing bit is that integer! the datatype and integer! the word 
probe identically.  If the word was integer! and the datatype were 
integer!! (for instance) then it would prohibit you from writing 
(to-word type? foo) but at least you could tell what was going wrong 
in your switch, because it would tell you that integer!! wasn't defined 
as an actual word.  You could still write (integer! = type? foo) 
in expressions.

BrianH - crashed on windows 7

Steeve talked about using a dialect to write schemes .. to create 
the FSM needed ... weren't you also doing something along these lines 
as well?

Oh wait, that happened to me too. The http scheme doesn't handle 
server errors well, and the internet has been getting increasingly 
crappy lately. That's why I've been looking over the scheme lately.

and what have you discovered?

^-- Actually, it need not keep you from writing (to-word type? foo) 
if it knew that datatypes should have the last ! chopped if turned 
into a word

Not much yet - I'm still reviewing the lower levels. There are two 
levels below the http scheme: TCP and the port model.

Where's UDP?

It's been hard to get enough spare time with a working brain. Too 
many emergencies lately that take up my time, mostly my sleep time.

UDP would be defined in the host code - if it's not there, it's not 
in R3 yet.

Needed to do reverse dns lookups

And other fine schemes.

Host code .. that's the one some guys have now?

Ask and you'll have it too. The source for tcp:// is in it as well.

Heh .... and what would I do with it?  lol

Learn :)

we need Holger back, to finish networking :-)

Geez, if you gave me the host code, I'll probably end up in the science 
channel ....

Has any decision been made to use Gab's rlp format for documentation 
and code generation yet ?

No decision yet. It certainly will do for now.

If I have 

a: :print 
or
a: %file.txt

how can I check for what it is ?


switch type? a [ function! [ print "function" ] file! [ print "file" 
]

switch type? a reduce [ function! [ print "function" ] file! [ print 
"file" ]

switch to-word type? a [...

TYPE?/word is best for now - less overhead than the REDUCE method.

ah yes, couldn't remember what the specific method was.

that evaluates the function

Less overhead than TO-WORD too.

switch type?/word :a [...

Nope .. then I have to check for native!

I guess I could use 

function! native! [ .... ]

case [any-function? :a [...] file? :a [...]]

ahh.. ok