World: r3wp

Graham,  I get an error 

Error.  Target url: http://192.168.1.62/user/StorageMediaFiles.cgi
could not be retrieved.  Server response: HTTP/1.1 40.... 
If you know a way to get the full error code, that might help.

One idea....Try setting the user-agent to the same as your browser's
   system/schemes/http/user-agent

And you're right, there is probably something else going on. I am 
at least getting part of the message. A successful .xml call looks 
like this:

a: http-tools http://192.168.1.62/user/StorageEventMode.xml[] probe 
a
make object! [
    HTTP-Response: "HTTP/1.1 200 OK"
    Date: none
    Server: "Mango DSP - HTTP Server (v2.34)"
    Last-Modified: none
    Accept-Ranges: none
    Content-Encoding: none
    Content-Type: "text/xml"
    Content-Length: "270"
    Location: none
    Expires: none
    Referer: none
    Connection: none
    Set-Cookie: none
    Cache-Control: "no-store"
    content: {<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="StorageEventMode.xsl"?>
<StorageEventMode>
^-<RecOnNetworkFailure id="RecOnNetworkFailure" checked="true"/>
^-<PreEventBufferTime id="PreEventBufferTime" value="20"/>
</StorageEventMode>
}
]

I'm learning more about what may be happening. According to the docs, 
I may be getting either a 401 or 404 error. More as I figure this 
out.

Problem almost solved. The http-tools'  http-port-private buffer 
is not being read to the end so all along the data was there. Thanks 
Graham and Sunanda...I am learning a lot from you.

So what's happening is that the server is not returning an LF/CR 
to separate the contents from response fields so when it gets to 
 parse-header, that function does not know there is any contents. 
In stead of getthing something like:

HTTP-Response: HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: Mango DSP - HTTP Server (v2.34)
Content-Type: 
text/xml
Content-Length: 270
Cache-Control: no-store

<?xml version=
1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>"

I am getting:

HTTP-Response: <?xml version='1.0' encoding='ISO-8859-1' ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='StorageMediaFiles.xsl'?>
<StorageMediaFiles>
<MediaFile ..."


Placing a LF between the first and second lines fixes it. I am going 
to kludge it for now since I know what routines work and don't.

Then I am asking the manufacturer to fix that.

Hello, could anyone explain me why the following code does not work
>> rebcode: copy []
== []
>> append rebcode 'sine/radians
== [sine radians]

while the following code does work
>> rebcode: copy []
== []
>> append/only rebcode 'sine/radians
== [sine/radians]

Also, why the following code does not work:
>> rebcode: copy []
== []
>> append rebcode to-word "sine/radians"
== [sine/radians]
>> append rebcode 0.5
== [sine/radians 0.5]
>> do rebcode
** Script Error: sine/radians has no value
** Near: sine/radians 0.5

while the following one works
>> rebcode: copy []
== []
>> append/only rebcode 'sine/radians
== [sine/radians]
>> append rebcode 0.5
== [sine/radians 0.5]
>> do rebcode
== 0.479425538604203

'sine/radians is path!. That's why it's added as [sine radians] when 
you don't use append/only.

In case 2, "sine/radians" is not path! (that gets reduced to function 
with refinement) but word! without value. It's possible to get your 
desired behaviour with #2, but it's slow.

You can also do this:

>> rebcode: copy []
== []
>> append/only rebcode make path! [sine radians]
== [sine/radians]
>> append rebcode 0.5
== [sine/radians 0.5]
>> do rebcode
== 0.479425538604203

Thanks rebolek... interesting

But what do you mean with "It's possible to get your desired behaviour 
with #2, but it's slow."

I mean this:


>> dt [loop 1000 [c: copy [] append/only c 'sine/radians append c 
0.5 do c]]  
== 0:00:00.002512


>> dt [loop 1000 [c: copy [] append/only c load "sine/radians" append 
c 0.5 do c]]
== 0:00:00.035299


In second case, to convert from string! to path!, string must be 
loaded first and as you can see it's about 14x slower in this rough 
test.

Understood. Thanks a lot for the time you spent ;)

you're welcome :)

as to why you need append/only: a path! is also a series!, with the 
path componenets being the elements. whitness:

>> type? 'a/b
== path!
>> series? 'a/b
== true

>> first 'a/b
== a
>> second 'a/b
== b

Which is why just APPENDing a path! to a block! separately appends 
each component of the path, just as for other series:

>> append t: copy [1 2] [3 4]
== [1 2 3 4]
>> append t: copy [1 2] 'a/b
== [1 2 a b]

If you want to append a series as a whole to another, you use the 
/only refinement:

>> append/only t: copy [1 2] [3 4]
== [1 2 [3 4]]
>> append/only t: copy [1 2] 'a/b  
== [1 2 a/b]

I think that the help for append should be corrected from:


/only -- Only insert a block as a single value (not the contents 
of the block)

to


/only -- Only insert series as a single value (not the contents of 
series)

Absolutely!

Not sure on that Bolek. It might then be confusing in the other direction, 
where appending a string without /only could be expected to append 
the individual chars. Since path! is any-block! the existing help 
is OK IMO.

Seems like it's neither block!s alone nor all series! values, seems 
like it's any-block! values which append/only inserts as a single 
value only.

Yes. I guess it could say "Appends any block value as a single value" 
to be a little clearer.

/only -- Appends any block value as a single value only (not the 
contents)


Is that good enough english to probably suggest it for R3 in curecode 
and R2 rambo?

The English is fine, but is it really more meaningful?

Why FORMing a datatype! removes the ! char? We cannot get it back 
to datatype without adding a ! to the end:
to-datatype to-word form integer! ;not working
to-datatype to-word join form integer! "!" ;ok


is this a bug, if it is by-desing what is the reason to remove "!"?

I think it's by design. FORM makes values "more readable". You'd 
better use MOLD for what you need.

yes MOLD is better use, thank you. I just curious about why FORM 
removes ! char. I think it prevents to manually remove ! char in 
this kind of situations:
a: 5 reform [a "is an" type? a]
>> 5 is an integer

Yes, I think this is exact user-case for FORM.

Hello


Just a basic question: when creating or resetting a string! or a 
block!, should we do
a: ""
b: []
or is better to do
a: copy ""
b: copy []

I tend to do the second way...

Does it make a difference? If yes, which way is better.

Thanks

This is the difference:

>> my-code-a: [a: "" append a #"x"]
== [a: "" append a #"x"]

>> do my-code-a
== "x"

>> my-code-a
== [a: "x" append a #"x"]

>> my-code-b: [b: copy "" append b #"x"]
== [b: copy "" append b #"x"]

>> do my-code-b
== "x"

>> my-code-b
== [b: copy "" append b #"x"]

Which one is better may depend on the application

usually, though, the latter is safer

Thanks ladislav

The bahaviour of my-code-a is confusing... What could be the point 
to do a: "" then?

E.g. if you want such a behaviour, i.e. if the effect is desired.

the statement a: "" is useless... You could obtain the same behaviour 
without repeating a: ""

Certainly, I prefer the latter, like you do.

???
>>  my-code-a: [a: [] append a 'x]
== [a: [] append a 'x]
>> do my-code-a
== [x]
>> do my-code-a
== [x x]
>> a: []
== []
>> a
== []
>> head a
== []
>> do my-code-a
== [x x x]
>> a
== [x x x]


what is the logic behind this? How could a be empty after a: [] and 
be filled will three 'x after just one call to do my-code-a

:-D you need to consult the MY-CODE-A block contents

Because oit's different A

(or, be careful, and use the copy [...] construct)

Rebolek: both calls to 'a are in the same context (root context) 
How could we have two different 'a in the same context?

The variable is not different, Francois, but the blocks are

it's like

a: []
a: [1 2 3]


how come? that after no insert at all I get three elements in an 
(originally empty block? ;-)

Sorry... i do not understand...
 
>> a
== []

>> a
== [x x x]

>> my-code-a: [a: [] append a 'x]
== [a: [] append a 'x]
>> do my-code-a
== [x]
>> do my-code-a
== [x x]
>> a: []
== []
>> my-code-a
== [a: [x x] append a 'x]
>> do my-code-a
== [x x x]
>> a
== [x x x]