World: r3wp

I guess I don't need to exit the handler then?

the port is closed so no more events are arriving

in theory yes, but I realized that sometimes, for some reason, the 
port got closed more than once by the async code within the interpreter. 
  the attempt seemed to cure any problems with that.

BTW, if anyone wants to try this, I have no error handling.

Fair enough .. wrap any close with an attempt

Graham - we are talking R2 here, right?

Yes.

R3 looks long stalled ...

yes, very little of sign of life in R3 land last weeks/months ...

So, we have to keep improving R2 which is at least usable in applications

Understood. I thought about the back-up plan of how to make R3 usable 
- simply to get it at least on par with R2. Dunno if much is needed? 
Screw the console ... but at least - fixed call, dll interface, protocols 
(we have some base of your work), what else might be missing? DB 
protocols port?

But - some things might require Carl's attention anyway, so ....

No SSL ... means not really usable for me

but yes, all those other things such as fixed call, dll interface, 
and DB protocols ...

Maybe Ladislav or someone else could took over the improved DLL interface 
in the form of extension? There's still 450 USD floating, and Max 
did not deliver yet :-) ... and although having dyncall would be 
nice, having simpler but improved DLL interface might be still helpful 
:-)

Why doesn't Carl claim the $450 ?

dunno ... while it is nice money for folk here in CZ, it might not 
be enough of money for someone from US to become interested. BrianH 
also does not have a job, so I wonder why did not he picked-it up? 
I know 450 USD is not much, it is just some first attempt at pseudo-financing 
development effort. It was just brought to encourage some developments 
...

If someone would create proper development schedule, I could sponsor 
100 USD/month, let's say for 1 year. Yes, I am crazy enough. But 
- I want to see some result, I want to see R3 moving forward ...

Well, first off it needs to be stated the $450 is there for someone 
to claim again.

Let's ask Brian if he wants to try first then ...

If more ppl like me would be willing to sponsor other devs (simply 
by donating the amount they can easily afford), we would be close 
to the bounty system ...

Can you restate the task somewhere ... on a web page or something?

Isn't bounty group here?

not everyone is on altme

rebol.org?

Graham: on close you can just close the port (so that it is removed 
from the wait list). apparently not doing that causes an error (not 
sure if this is new, or i just never catched it before; anyway i 
think rebol should not be calling the awake after the port has been 
closed)

Anton - "MOLD can produce a string with braces instead {}"  - That's 
true, but only if the string contains new line or " char. You cannot 
use such a chars in file names, so I think it's pretty safe to use 
mold for the above example.

It's possible, although certainly rare.  I've accidentally made files 
with newlines in the filename.  And I just checked - the quote mark 
is also valid (on linux)

Also, length is an issue:
>> mold [Long line?]
== "[Long line?]"

>> mold [Long line? lets make it really really really really long 
now]

== {[Long line? lets make it really really really really long now]}

(Rebol 2.7.6 on Ubuntu)

in R2 ... isn't this wrong?

>> a: first do "['dd]"
== 'dd
>> type? a
== word!
>> a: to-lit-word a
== 'dd
>> a
== dd
>> type? a
== word!

the way I see it, the above means that words always aggressively 
evaluate lit-words, 


shouldn't a value returned as a lit-word stay that way until an eval 
of your choice is perfomed on it?

This may help, but I don't play with lit-words very often:
>> a: first do "['dd]"
== 'dd
>> type? a
== word!
>> type? :a
== lit-word!

yeah, I guess you're right... I didn't think about it this way.


its the purpose of a word to evaluate its content, and get-words 
to return them un-evaluated.


still, this specific case isn't very obvious.  guess I put my "newbie 
hat" for a few minutes there  ;-)

in a dialect, via block-parsing, this is a very tricky detail!

I suggested quite a few times to Carl to specifically suppress this, 
but my proposal was not accepted in this case, maybe if you wrote 
it as a CureCode wish, Carl would find out I am not the only one 
suggesting it?

As Iskata underlined it, i don't see anything specific.
a -> is evalatued, :a is not.

The VM always tries to evaluates/reduces the words, not the get-words.

*evaluated, *Izkata

but lit words are a datatype.   when such a lit word is encountered 
in a do block and evaluated, it is reduced to a word.  that is ok.


but when it is *stored* AS as a lit-word, it should not be evaluated. 
 remember that words may contain words, which will be evaluated.


so why should lit-words be evaluated too?  the basic word containing 
a word already does that.

Hmm... let me check that...

the specific is that 

a: 'z      and     a: to-lit-word 'z

are not equal expressions.

so why should evaluating a also evaluate z in the second form.

since it will in the first form.

its the same as saying that blocks would ALWAYS be reduce everytime 
you evaluate a word which holds a block.

to me a lit-word is not a reference, its a token.  nothing more. 
 so evaluating one should just return itself, like strings & blocks.

sorry... evaluating a *word* which holds a lit-word, should just 
return the original lit-word.

Ok I see your point now.

But I have to admit I've never been bored by this cascade evaluation.scheme 
:)

@Gab .. since the sub-port is closed, it can't receive events to 
pass on to the main port so yes, it shouldn't receive any more events.


Just wondering why putting a 'true in the handler at the end of the 
'close event handler also causes REBOL to exit the View event handler 
as well ...

it quits the wait []  call.

the same happens if you return true from the view wake-event.

I guess it must.

In the async-http ( or any other protocol ), when exactly is the 
'init function called?