World: r3wp

I have been giving the subject some thought, and even more so since 
Silverlight came out. It would be the best way to get REBOL into 
Windows Phone 7, for instance. I don't see how the tail-call thing 
would affect REBOL on Java though: REBOL doesn't do tail-call optimization 
anyways. But we might want to wait for Java 7 and its dynamic types 
(Java's cheap knock-off of the DLR).

R3 question?  http://synapse-ehr.com/forums/showthread.php?53-Error-Illegal-entry-in-bfchar-block-in-ToUnicode-CMap

No, it's not an R3 question, those functions don't exist in R3.

Must be some library he is using

trying to do scheme above tcp to aid with async protos

but each time i stick my nose in R3's network stuffs, I encounter 
limits which annoys me

what limits, for e.g.?

First, we can't add our own parameters to actors or change their 
type

e.g

I wanted to user the refinement read/part to allow custom breaking 
rules

>> read/part port 100  ; to read only 100 bytes
Fine it wors

*works

but then i wanted to allow any type of breaking rule, like
>> read/part port crlf ; to break into lines
And event more powerfull:
>> read/part  port [thru #"^@]
To allow any parsing rule as breaking point

but then i wanted to allow any type of breaking rule, like
>> read/part port crlf ; to break into lines
And event more powerfull:
>> read/part  port [thru #"^@]
To allow any parsing rule as breaking point

but then i wanted to allow any type of breaking rule, like
>> read/part port crlf ; to break into lines
And event more powerfull:
>> read/part  port [thru #"^@]
To allow any parsing rule as breaking point

'read would have to be extended, to allow that, no?

It's the purpose of scheme's actors

READ/custom perhaps.

well, read/write became low-level, and Carl still did not decide, 
how to replace missing R2's functionality ....

read/lines is missing most ...

read/write, read/custom don't exist in R3

That's the point you can rewrite the functions as actors of your 
scheme but your not allowed to add/change the parameters

IMHO: after the host, I think the whole device model will be last 
thing to get itself fixed, finalized and done.  when that occurs, 
we'll have a beta.

http://www.rebol.net/r3blogs/0294.html
http://www.rebol.net/r3blogs/0127.html

Thank, I was about to look for those.

I've been waiting for READ/as and WRITE/as for a while now, to apply 
to the clipboard:// scheme.

what i got currently, is this:

p: open etcp://my-ip:my-port   ;immediate, does not connect

write p [verbose debug timeout 20]   ; pass a block of commands to 
change the config of the port

write p "echo toto"     ; the connection is established then data 
are sent
read p 		; one packet is waited and a binary is returned.
read/string p  ; one packet is waited and a string is returned

read/part p crlf    ; one or more packets are waited until the breaking 
rule is matched

read/write/as solve just encoding, no? Still not abstracted encoder/decoder 
solution anyway .... old discussion :-)

READ or WRITE /as just solves the encoding problem. Which for the 
clipboard:// scheme means chosing which one of several encodings 
is already strored in the clipboard, at least for most modern OSes.

ah, what? /string and /lines were added? Well, we can't keep to original 
ideas, probably ...

IIRC originally we had following specs: read file /part size /skip 
len

In such case, maybe it was better to still have read-io, write-io, 
and make read and write more higher level. What is the reason to 
first "prune down" function, and later on give-up, and add other 
refinements, because the practical merits push us to do so?

I like READ and WRITE being lower-level - it makes the semantic model 
of ports simpler. R2 tripped over that all the time.

That would not be a problem, if we were allowed to add our own parameters 
and refinement.

Because the meaninfulness of a refinement in write or read is depending 
of the scheme where it's used.
We can change the code but not the interface.

but why /lines and /string were added?

it does not make them low level anymore. those functions were about 
reading stream of bytes, not strings ...

because of some complaints with file operations

Because they were needed for the main uses of READ and WRITE: Text 
processing.

hahaha :-)

so you talk x hours to me, trying to explain, that R3 broke with 
R2 almost-everything-is-string attitude, to later on admit, that 
we gave up on strictly deviding, what 'read/write are supposed to 
do

Hey, we added support for Unicode text processing right into the 
language, even including two datatypes specificly for that purpose: 
string! and char!.

when was /lines added? I even did not notice it ... even the blog 
which was supposed to resolve it did not mention anything like that 
...

I thought we got 'split to simulate read/lines?

It's not an exception Pekr, there were changes made in the past without 
any commercials

Alpha 78.

I think this is all under-engineered - not finished in design. There 
was never any resolution posted to the topic. And the topic is deep. 
It reaches even continuous reading and parsing (streaming) and codecs 
...

Current codecs are totally unusable

Agreed.

I think that Carl will have to think about this single topic for 
quite some time, to get the design right ...

The truth is, that while I prefer things being conceptually correct/consistent, 
I also miss, if we miss on easiness of use of R2 (read/lines, simple 
tcp open/insert/copy/close sync mode)

probably we need a new FSM dialect, parse is not suited to do that 
job. We have to do too much hack to simulate a fast and clean state 
machine.