World: r3wp

didn't changed and is brought in as extension, the binding should 
not change significantly (all my guess).

Graham: the seemingly self-recursive "close" call works, because 
of how the actor functions are bound. Compare:

>> foo: func [] [42]
>> bar: compose [foo: (func [] [foo])]
== [foo: make function! [[][foo]]]

>> bar/foo
== 42


The situation with protocol actors is similar. (With the binding/reduction 
stuff is "hidden" in make-scheme.)

BTW, as I was working on this, I realized how much you are going 
to like this new R3 build.  The entire graphics, including the view-related 
mezz functions are now a module stored in the host kit.  So, all 
of our new graphics support code can go there and be updated as needed.
 - Carl

/me likes it :-)

Robert - you should ask Carl for the permission to Tweet those nice 
messages :-)

I can.

I did.

Cool!

Andreas, so this binding was not done in R2 schemes?

Hence the need for scopy, spick, severything?

No, the binding *was* done in R2 schemes, hence the need for scopy, 
etc. It is not done in R3 schemes, so you don't need those extra 
references because the originals are not overwritten anymore.

They may be overwritten though, if instead of giving a block of specs 
you furnish an object of actors to the make-scheme function:)

Not only that, you may replace the actors of a port at anytime.

Hey Steeve, I think my scheme is working now  :)

Looks like all R3 development work is occuring inside darknets inside 
darknets

Kinda defeats the idea of open source components

yeah, I was hoping to have a bit more feedback published from the 
daily scrums

I guess there's been more feedback than before, though

What feedback do you expect?

The thing is to concentrate and focus that we can deliver something. 
Disussions about non-priority things don't help us at the moment.

The daily scrum is not that interesting as there is nothing DONE 
until the end of a sprint. We are currently using 1 week sprints. 
This means every Friday afternoon we review what has been DONE.

Graham: I expect something to be released (open-sourced), once there 
is actually something to open-source. I mean - untill the HostKit 
isolation is done, we can't proceed. Once View is completly separated 
as module, it can, and hopefully it will be released ...

I don't know about anything why it shouldn't be released.

I'm looking forward what will be done with the host-kit. Not sure 
why it's a mandatory component for so many to use R3 but OK, maybe 
I just don't get it.

IMO it's more critical to use to get a good GUI up & running with 
a broad set of styles.

Pekr, I was just saying that all R3 development is either practically 
invisible, or, perhaps is just not happening.  r3 chat is also dead.

well, I think that if Carl's developments from the private world 
is posted on his twitter account, that should be enough.

Is the lack of developer activity just a sign of lack of interest 
in R3?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. There is probably more developer 
activity now than in the past 2 years.

There's no unpaid activity

People are waiting for the host kit.

I'm busy again, and just chatted with Carl today about what I'm working 
on. For better or worse (mostly worse), that's unpaid.

Robert is pulling a lot of strings (namely by getting hold of all 
the right people, while they are not busy) to focus R3 development 
and I'm impressed that he was able to get Carl in on it. It's what's 
needed now to move forward at greater speed, just like any other 
serious development effort. Robert's motivation is to deliver products 
as soon as possible and there is nothing strange about that.

For the main things I was working on, I am now unblocked. Thanks, 
Robert!

ANd Pekr, who has also done a lot of behind-the-scenes work.

It's so sad that after 3-4 years there's so few people working on 
R3

Graham, I just don't get your criticism. We are MOVING. That's key.

I'm not criticising .. just making an observation

well, you can't see everything right now.

I can only observe what I see!

OK. We will weigh your observations accordingly :)

Reminds me of Get Smart

Loved that show :)

BrianH: I did nothing :-) I am just rebol politician, lobbying here 
or there :-)

Politicians are underrated. Though your role was more diplomat, messenger 
or matchmaker :)

Please don't call Pekr a politician. That would require Pekr not 
to know what he's doing and generally not really care about REBOL. 
:-)

:-) .... yes, but one aspect remains ... you work, I talk :-)

>> a: [a 1 2 b 3 4 c 5 6 d 7 8]
== [a 1 2 b 3 4 c 5 6 d 7 8]

>> head move/to/skip find copy a 'd 1 3
== [a 1 d 7 8 2 b 3 4 c 5 6]


Looks like a bug to me. [d 7 8] should be at offset 1 rather than 
3. This is also present in R2 forward.

sorry, plain R2.7.7, not R2 forward.

Nope, 2.7.7 has the R2/Forward code. I see the bug, though have a 
question: Should the index obey the skip?