World: r4wp

Crap, I hate not being able to edit what I just posted. Used to being 
sloppy on the SO chat. I see that I managed two typos above...

Well, we've been encouraged lately to put these up, and we can point 
other pages to SO if need be, or copy the answers to a documentation 
page when we have those. I mostly see it as a place to write short 
documentary articles in a Q&A format, much like Yahoo answers is 
a place to write jokes in Q&A format.

If it were Cracked, I'd be writing numbered lists instead :)

Answered. So, how do we phrase the question?

It should be something that captures a wider range of searches, for 
example on general purpose template expansion, resolving prepared 
statements, etc.

Even if some of this is not incorporated into the question, it should 
at least be tagged with the appropriate keywords.

What are the steps for compiling r3 under Windows using MinGW? Is 
there some documentation I can use?

You need MSYS in addition to MinGW

yes, the problem is MINGW is using own 'custom' version of MAKE called 
"mingw32-make.exe" which doesn't behave well on the R3 makefile (at 
least from my experience).
So my Windows setup is:
-I installed CodeBlocks with MINGW support

-then I installed MSYS and extracted only 'necessary' files from 
MSYS/bin folder and put it into CodeBlocks\msys\bin\ folder
-then I deleted the MSYS instalation to not have bloat on my disk

-I set paths to CodeBlocks\MinGW\bin CodeBlocks\msys\bin in the WIndows 
console

-from now I can  just type MAKE ALL in the CMD console and R3 builds 
fine


Just in case here is the list of "necessary" MSYS/bin files I extracted 
(around 3MB of data):

cp.exe
make.exe
mkdir.exe
msys-1.0.dll
msys-iconv-2.dll
msys-intl-8.dll
msys-regex-1.dll
msys-termcap-0.dll
rm.exe
rmdir.exe
sh.exe

(note: the paths to bin/ folders must be in the specific order mentioned 
above)

Thaks, I will try it

If you wantt I can put the "minimal" MSYS bin folder into a zip archive 
so you can download it and just copy it into your codeblocks instalation...

I did the same for Ladislav and it worked for him well AFAIK.

also, other option is to create CodeBlocks setup file so you can 
build directly from CodeBlocks using mingw but I guess noone did 
that so far ;)

Cyphre, that would be very nice.

here you go: http://cyphre.mysteria.cz/stuff/msys.zip

just unpack it and copy to <your path to codeblocks>/CodeBlocks/ 
main dir

Thanks, I will try it

Actually, to keep things as simple as possible for people, all you 
need is Code::Blocks, the CB project file and a slightly modified 
make-make.r that is soon to be checked in by Andreas (or which I 
could provide). Then, you can build from CB (and debug), navigate 
your C source propertly, etc.

Ping me either here or on SO chat if you would like the two files.

This is a tip for where you have those pesky @s in a username. You 
still can't get past that by using %40 in a url as Rebol converts 
those when it evaluates the url but you can do this


>> cmd: open decode-url "ftp://user%40rebol.com:[password-:-ftp-:-rebol-:-com]"
make object! [
    title: "FTP Protocol"
    scheme: 'ftp

    ref: [scheme: 'ftp pass: "password" user: "user%40rebol.com" host: 
    "ftp.rebol.com"]
    path: none
    host: "ftp.rebol.com"
    port-id: 21
    pass: "password"
    user: "user%40rebol.com"
]
port opened ...

saves a bit of typing out the whole spec

now we just have to add a dehex inside the open port actor

Does the old charset patch no longer work?


net-utils/url-parser/user-char: union net-utils/url-parser/user-char 
make bitset! #"@"

didn't try ... !

R3 CALL seems pretty useless to me compared to R2. Is there anybody 
trying to improve it?

I'm working on it, but only for Posix (Linux/OSX) so far.

And starting first with the basics I need (/wait + /input /output 
/error). (So no full scheme & async at the start.)

Great news, Andreas! Linux is good for me and basic input/output 
is enough too. Just what I need.

I discovered some interesting PARSE functionality, which I have not 
known about before. TO and THRU with integer arguments seem to do 
absolute positioning:

>> parse "abcd" ["abc" to 2 "bcd"]
== true


Anyone seen this before? I added a CC ticket as a reminder to document 
it (http://issue.cc/r3/1964) -- if anyone knows about a place where 
this is documented already, I'd be happy about a pointer.

Integers are rule modifiers, so to 2 doesn't actually do anything. 
In order for that to work you would have to use to quote 2.

Please just check for yourself, it behaves as I describe it above 
:)

(And it does so in R2 as well, so I may have picked the wrong group.)

I suggest to put the documentation to


http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/REBOL_Programming/Language_Features/Parse/Parse_expressions



taking into account that this article strives to be as complete as 
possible

The main problem is that when you pass TO an invalud rule, PARSE 
doesn't complain, it just ignores the rule as if you didn't write 
it at all.

Ladislav: thanks, forgot to list that. And it's at least a place 
where we can add it right away.

I think we have a ticket about that TO error ignoring problem.

Brian, it's not an error. TO/THRU support integers.

Andreas, you're right! That's a great feature!

to [2] should work, to 2 shouldn't.

But when to 2 doesn't work, TO doesn't complain.

Why it shouldn't work? It's great.

https://github.com/rebol/r3/blob/master/src/core/u-parse.c#L487

>> parse "abcdefgh" ["abc" to 2 p: (probe p)]
bcdefgh
== false

>> parse "abcdefgh" ["abc" to 7 p: (probe p)]
gh
== false

Rebolek, unfortunatly, you are mis-using TO.   TO is a search.   
 what you are doing is supposed to be done with SKIP

Is there a skip operation in PARSE?

Maxim: SKIP does relative positioning, TO/THRU do absolute positioning.

Well, that behavior seems like an undocumented feature. And a useful 
one :)

Wait, that's right, 2 skip, not skip 2.

what? heh? yuk.  sorry, but how do I then search for integers?