World: r3wp

rebol3 is not in a process of production but design + production 
so I would not be too restrictive on carl jumping from one thing 
to another. he is also only one, so he can't just do r3 for 2 years 
straight

Implemented the http://www.rebol.net/r3blogs/0300.htmlmodule EXPORT 
keyword. See http://curecode.org/rebol3/ticket.rsp?id=1446

Next up is http://www.rebol.net/r3blogs/0274.htmlcompressed modules/scripts. 
I have some interesting tricks to make them seamless to use and make, 
but I have to get a little sleep before I can really dig in to them.

Do we need SHA256 in checksum ?

Not a bad idea - what uses it?

Amazon

Interesting, how do they use it?

for signing requests

Sounds good. Request it in CureCode.

Eg. Here I use SHA1 http://rebol.wik.is/S3

but I guess they might want to only allow SHA256 in the future

SHA1 has been having problems lately, iirc (which I likely don't).

Do we have an url-encode function?

This doesn't look good ... http://www.curecode.org/rebol3/index.rsp


new issues are being created, but there's a sharp decline in closed 
issues

We were focusing on other things for a while. We're bug fixing now 
though.

I'm concerned about the accumulating syntax errors - not new, newly 
reported. At some point soon we'll have to fix the scanner.

Is there a way to specifiy that you want a timestamp vs date ?

From what? The NOW function, or date! values?

Also, by timestamp do you mean time! values? Cause they aren't timestamps.

the former

now => timestamp
now/date => date

NOW/time returns the time. It's not a timestamp though.

datestamp then ...

Maybe you want NOW/precise/utc.

I want to specify that a datestamp is the required parameter .. and 
that a date is not enough

I don't know the term "datestamp" - what does it mean?

it's the full thing returned by now

date with a time ...

So, some DBs have a date type, and a datestamp type

though they are called timestamp in Firebird

A SQL timestamp is different than a datetime. There's no real timestamp 
type in REBOL, the closest we have is STATS/timer.

I'm just saying this to try and explain what I mean

Thanks. The closest we have that is still a datetime is NOW/precise/utc.

Let's say that the function you just wrote requires that the user 
enter the date with a time ....

how do you tell whether the user in error used 

now/date

instead of

25-jan-2010/0:00

?

If you are talking about user input, then it is best to parse and 
construct. That way any errors can be flagged.

If you are getting the data from a string and can afford to be strict, 
use TO-DATE. Like this:
>> d: to-date "24-Jan-2010/0:00"
== 24-Jan-2010/0:00
>> d/time
== 0:00
>> d: to-date "24-Jan-2010"
== 24-Jan-2010
>> d/time
== none

why can't I import the same module more than once?

or, how can I do this?  If I am rewriting the module code ..

Sometimes you want to import a module more than once, sometimes you 
don't. If you want to redo it every time then don't set a name in 
the spec - that turns it into a mixin. And named modules can be upgraded 
at runtime.

Use the version to trigger an upgrade of a named module.

The trick is that the code of the new module might need to reference 
the old to migrate the data, override any words exported to the user 
context, whatever. This process would of course be different for 
every different module.

Of course that wouldn't affect isolated modules that import yours 
- those references would need to be upgraded individually or not 
at all

Do we have any xml helper functions?  


eg.  enclose-tag: func [ tag name ][ ajoin [ to-tag tag name to-tag 
join "/" tag ]]

I was wanting to try R3 again, but the download link isn't working....

Josh, there are two /r3 paths in the download path. Remove one of 
them.

Thanks, Henrik!

Time ago I have written about porting REBOL3 to the .NET platform 
and Java VM.

The reason ? There is a big universe of libraries and frameworks 
immediately usable that would bring many developers to the REBOL 
platform.

Considering .NET and JAVA VM as alternate OS to develop REBOL3 for 
would be a big step forward to me.

In life we must first accept a comprimise to bring our ideology to 
the world.

I like the idea of a REBOL executable whose size is less than 1MB 
but I want to use it as soon as possible and in many scenarios as 
possible.

Would it be so difficul for REBOL Tech. to understand that this starting 
compromise would be instead the best possible way to pubblicize REBOL 
?

If you agree with me, what about writing a small letter to Carl explaining 
our desire ? If many developers sign this letter we could try to 
convince him to make this step once R3 will go to beta.

Then, with the time, the standalone version of REBOL3 will surely 
gain additional libraries and componet but until then we will have 
a  great ecosystem already available !