World: r3wp

The note is important, because that type restriction is the main 
reason for the function, as opposed to just using NOT NOT :val.

BrianH, this is in order to combat the use of unset! as inputs?

Yes.

I've backported most of R3 to R2 (it bears repeating, because it 
was a hell of a task). 67 functions so far.

Cool!

So does this mean a 2.7.7?

There is so much extra code done for R2, that I would be surprised 
if an R2.7.7, doesn't appear.

Just do one script and you can start porting your code. And it works 
in 2.6.2.

Perhaps it should be called 2.8 instead.

Since it is all mezzanines then I don't think it should be anything 
more than offered as a mezzanine library.

Keep the current version until new natives are developed.  Otherwise 
we get nothing but mezzanine bloat with the newer version.

I think as a minimum for a new version in REBOL - it should contain 
new natives.  Maybe Carl can make some of them natives.

Paul has deciphered the plan. I think it should stay a separate script. 
It breaks tons of R2 code. I expect that we won't be doing a 2.7.7 
soon, and when we do it will just be compatible bug fixes. The future 
compatibility stuff will be in the R2-Future collection.

I disagree with that plan, unless there will be a method to include 
all changes with a single line of code. There are also many additions 
in VID.

And no new natives in future R2 versions, just compatible fixes to 
errors in existing natives. The only changes will be to make less 
behavior cause errors. And you can include R2-Forward in one line 
of code now, in 2.6.2 even.

Are the VID changes in R2-Forward?

Brian, I suggest not waiting for Carl and just offer a library of 
 all the mezzanines that can be incorporated by just 'DOing the script 
to import them.

Carl, doesn't need to get diverted from his current R3 progress.

Paul, I am doing that already. I'm just waiting for approval to release 
them as MIT licensed code.

It's done already.

Don't know why you need approval.  Anyone should be able to release 
mezzanine code shouldn't they?

Mezzanine code has license restrictions. I can only release this 
at all because I wrote almost all of the original mezzanines and 
didn't assign copyright to REBOL Tech or Carl.

It didn't matter - I was going to open source it anyways.

I don't think you have any legal ramifications at all here.

There are a few functions that were originally written by Carl - 
7 of the 67 are slight tweaks to functions Carl wrote, the rest mine.

Everything is attributed in the file. The main difference in licensing 
is that you would not be restricted like REBOL mezzanine source. 
One of those restrictions is that it is not allowed to use mezzanine 
source (either in the SDK or the source function) on REBOL clones 
like Oscar.

Henrik, the R3 changes to the graphics and port models are not supported. 
The post-2.7.5 R2 VID changes are not R3 compatible (nor is any R2 
VID or RebGUI code) so they should go in another file, which I think 
should still be external if it would break existing R2 code.

The whole point of this is to make new R2 releases mostly unnecessary, 
and nothing to wait for for most people.

Some changes will break VID, so there is probably more reason to 
create a VID extension kit.

VID extension kit == independent from R2-forward.

Yes, and then release it. Don't wait for a new R2 release.

However, an extention to patch R2's VID to make it compatible with 
R2-Forward might be interesting.

I have some plans for such a kit, but it depends on if I will get 
time to do it and if it collides with R3 GUI development. It involves 
removing some parts of the current VID, like the WindowsXP style 
buttons and making SET-FACE and GET-FACE uniform for all styles. 
Also adding some new styles and the new resize scheme would go under 
that. It would make VID way less painful to use.

Sounds like fun :)

FYI: R2-Forward is currently usable from a DO call, prebol (the SDK 
preprocessot) or Gabriele's R2 module system.

It's about half done and I have a bunch of code files for this. I 
was going to use it for a large VID project, but it has been dropped, 
cutting away 6 months of work for me (phew!).

BrianH, what happened to the idea of including prebol in R3? And 
if it goes in, would it be included in R2-Forward?

A1: Still under discussion, and won't happen before the module rework. 
A2: Yes.

For that matter, after the module rework so will modules, to the 
extent that I can do it. Probably based on Gabriele's code if I can 
convince him to MIT it - his code is currently BSD, and BSD's non-promotion 
clause may be at odds with the extensive attribution I've put in 
R2-Forward. That's why I used MIT: BSD licensing is too restrictive.

interesting

You can't give people credit for their work or ideas if you can't 
use their name.

You're in there, Henrik, credit for your initial GATHER proposal.

Carl stated at one time that he preferred our works being BSD licensed.

Carl is not a lawyer, but he knows that you can't encap LGPL2 or 
GPL2 code. MIT is less restrictive than BSD, so it's Ok.

Well, then I think he would favor the least restrictive model then.

Maybe he didn't know much about MIT model or maybe it has evolved 
since he made that comment.

That would be public domain.

I wanted to disclaim implied warrantees, so I chose MIT instead of 
public domain.

BTW, "you can't encap LGPL2 or GPL2 code" means that you can't do 
so even if you *do* provide the source. Incompatible licenses.

The same goes for pre-open-source Java and .NET code on the MS runtime 
instead of Mono: No GPL2 code, and no static linking of LGPL2 code, 
even if you do provide the source. You gotta use an exception like 
Classpath to use (L)GPL2. (L)GPL3 fixes this.