World: r3wp

The 2 completed are documentation requests. The reason the tested 
and dismissed ones are not marked completed is because I don't know 
the policy for making that distinction.

Tested=>Completed : I guess that once the fix (or new feature) is 
released to users, it should be marked as completed.

It would be grest if you could get the tested requests marked as 
completed as the stats give such a bad false impression.

Doc's definition sounds good with the proviso that the status can 
be reverted if the user finds the bug hasn't been fixed.

Btw, ticket should be closed by the emitter once the fix is released. 
If the user don't do that after a given period (let say 1 or 2 weeks, 
one of CC's admin or developers can do that instead).

BrianH : yes please remove "else"

virtual block looks very cool !   how were you able to use the same 
words insert,copy,etc.. on new datatype (I suppose without changing 
the initial insert functions) .. can this be done in rebol, I thought 
it's not possible but being able to define something like generic 
words on custom datatypes would be very important function? hm.. 
while I am at it... I realized I have no idea about what datatypes 
in rebol are and if one can make it's own..

Janko, because the supported functions like COPY works on ports, 
and virtual blocks is a port scheme, customizing how COPY works with 
that specific scheme.

Ahaa.. I saw ports and schemes mentioned and that you can define 
your own, but still have no idea what they are, will need to read 
more about it..

rebol is both very small and very big at the same time

(in a good way)

so it's not a new datatype, but a new scheme for port!.

yes, I realized .. that's why I said big.. usually there are functions 
and variables, here are so many things, dialects, schemes .. etc 
:)

I think you can figure out how it works by reading Steeves code. 
It's quite simple.

that link doesn't work for me , and I also don't have r3 to test 
it

I saw some tutorial about creating new "protoco handler" .. or is 
that a third thing?

it should be the same thing

if you read about ports in the wiki, they'll give a fair explanation 
of how they work.

it's the same reason you can use READ on files, HTTP, FTP, etc.

aha yes.. this is interesting concept .. I was alredy thinking about 
it when I was using pop:// protocol (carl probably realized that 
most "communication" can be abstracted in means on operating on serries)..

then I suppose to create new scheme needs to just provide handlers 
for all those funcs, insert, copy, delete .. ?

Henrik, to what level are you being involved in R3 development?

I work on the GUI and point out bugs to Carl.

Do you guys get to get down to the C code at all or is that strictly 
controlled by Carl?

C is only Carl and Cyphre. Everyone else only work with REBOL. But 
we are allowed to contribute C code if he wants something specific.

Oh what about Gabriele? I thought he had that type of access.

Yes, but he is very busy with QTask for the moment. He has contributed 
HTTP, REBOL/Services and the first prototype of the VID3 GUI.

I see.

Janko, yes, exactly. If you open a port, you get a port object with 
information about what the scheme does. When that port is passed 
to COPY, appropriate actions are taken to carry out the COPY function 
that resides inside the scheme.

All of you volunteers are do you guys get paid for your work?

I volunteer. I don't know about others.

Is there a list of all those contributing to R3?

Our official people list appears not to be up to date:

http://rebol.net/wiki/People

:-)

hehe - no doesn't appear so.

well, there's me (GUI), BrianH (smart guy), Brian Tiffin (docs), 
Cyphre (graphics), Gabriele (network/GUI), Pekr (communications), 
Maarten (network), and about 10 others who've made contributions. 
Didn't really want to mention people in case I forget important ones.

I understand.  But that is helpful, thanks.

I think Steeve and Doc are involved in some manner as well.

oh yes. see? I forgot some. :-)

Paul: when you were asking about default arguments to funcs before, 
I think it's a "conceptual" limitation because of stuff like this 
example (for example that oneortwo can take 1 or 2 arguments : >> 
oneortwo 2 add 3 2  .............  and most things like if either 
are expressions which means they return a value (which you sometimes 
need and sometimes not )  you can "assume" that you will always require 
result of add because it has no side effect, but for example : >> 
oneortwo 2 if [ insert copy [ ] 1 ] ..... there is no theoretical 
way to determine if result of if SHOULD be taken by oneortwo or not

thats probably why refinements were invented , that also add a lot 
of new

OCaml for example has optional arguments , but you HAVE to use parentesis 
like this oneorwto 2 ( add 3 2 ) and every value that get's returned 
from expression must sink into something explicitly ..  so if you 
don't need it you have to still use     >> let _ = somefunc 10 in 
<<.. or >> ignore ( somefunc ) ; ..

(but I am a ocaml newbie too)

[Virtual blocks] What do you think of an option to allow fixed-size 
records only, so that there is no need to create a file index (faster 
access but data file possibly bigger)

yes, I like that.

yes that would be a cool option too

Steeve ... are there any chances to see this also in R2?

theoricaly yes, schemes exist under R2 too

do you want R2 version at first ?

BrianH:  ELSE  -  I never used it. I don't care if it's removed.

well at least there is a chance :) .. well I don't know when I will 
be able to try R3 at all, and even less when I will be able to use 
in for real projects... that's why I am asking, but I don't "urgently" 
need it right now so no worries for me