World: r3wp

Thats why ladislav puts the date in a string. compiled later.

how should it work instead?

ok, can we meet with state, where your app returns directly such 
invalid date? e.g. mentioned link to sqlite date field?

how would it work? dunno? a bit more relaxed evaluation? interpreter 
finding string 29-Feb-2006 - it is valid format, not just valid value. 
Under some condition it could be even valid date (leap year). I would 
expect even such error to be catchable ...

ok, so I will have to trust gurus the fact, that technically it can't 
be fixed :-)

how does Rebol not know how to handle 29-feb-2006 as a date! ? I'm 
not sure I understand this, because how then is the unrecoverable 
error generated? from what I see, you'll always need to wrap some 
precautionary measures around handling dates to avoid this. that's 
not good design.

internal its not a string, but a number. you would get 29-feb-2006 
as 1-mar-2006. would that be ok?

anyway ... I don't like current state, that is all. I even don't 
know consequences, just a feeling :-) Maybe Carl could give us his 
opinion, if it is bug or not, and if not, if this is desirable behavior 
...

maybe a hook in 'load, whcih can do some spellchecking?

hmm, help me to imagine, how does interpreter internally works? So 
let's simplify it - it reaches 280.250.250 tuple. It tries to parse 
it. It eventually recognises it as a tupple, otherwise it would not 
return "Invalid tuple", no? But then it finds invalid values ... 
why just doesn't it recognise, it is part of 'try block and does 
not throw error, which would be catchable?

because  it does not try to parse it. it has already.

'load does the parsing. after load has finished, all datatypes are 
in an optimized form.

if load cant handle something, it is helpless. it does not know something 
is inside a try-block. it only knows it has loaded a lot of words 
already and the followingtext is not right.

that means the error happens when the sourcecode with the try is 
laoded, before try as any achance to be executed.

then maybe there could be two phases of load .... parse form, not 
the value first :-) 999.999.999 for a valid tuple! datatype. It is 
too strict, in opposite to:

>> email? to-email "nonsense"
== true

that's why we have the term "loadable", right? Carl talks about this 
when parsing. Otherwise this wouldn't be a problem.

maybe some datatype "weird" with the original string and a type-suggestion? 
but then you get problems with ambiguities.

what is a typo, what ignored? 6-pfu-206 ?

maybe i amn to conservative, used to compilers which tell me each 
bug, instead of fixin it. always fearing a misunderstanding when 
the compiler would try toguess itself. if it could reliable guess, 
thatwould be cool :)

as long as there are no dead ends with truly unrecoverable errors...

Volker - but how does it know of 29-Feb-2006? Under some condition, 
it is valid date ... imo already higher level logic is applied here, 
no?

- btw - from my pov, regard this discussion academic .... I don't 
understand compilers, interpreters, just speculating here :-)

quick question ... I have a number of simple objects that I create 
on the web server and then send back to client in molded format.

how does one restore them back to objects?

If I load them, I just get a block

mold/all

uses some extra syntax.

ok, let me try :)

Pekr, the only thing to know is that all code is loaded and checked 
for syntax, and then executed. and before execution 'try has no real 
meaning, it could be"the" 'try, or a local or style or something. 
when 'do does the code it does no longer know the original source. 
So 'load has to report errors on its own.

page: read http://www.compkarori.com/cgi-local/show-templates.r

parse page [ thru <templates> copy code to </templates> ]

Btw rebol cheats and uses a calendar ;)>> 29-feb-2004
== 29-Feb-2004
>> 29-feb-2005
** Syntax Error: Invalid date -- 29-feb-2005
** Near: (line 1) 29-feb-2005

seems to work ...

thanks.

np. the "#[object! [" does the magic.

Volker - isn't checking against the calendar too preliminary during 
the state of code load? :-)

No, thats the basic equpment of a god loader. pda and such ;)

:-)

even a cell phone? probably so :-)

in the case of tuple, is that kind of binary given, that the value 
can't be larger than 255?

*riing* "Hi" - "This isnt a date, you know?" :)

Yes.

upto 12 bytes  out the 16 AFAIK.

so tuples can't be used for things like coordinaty space?

No.

Coimplex things need objects.

Until Carl finds a clever magic new way to keep performance. :)

hmm, we have pair for such things ...

I wonder if tuples should allow rotation?

the advantage is, the memory-layout is known, so the interpreter 
has an easier job.