World: r3wp

And with that number of objects, if you can use blocks instead of 
objects, it will reduce the weight even more.

but notice he is creating faces... can't replace that with block 
 !

it's possible to replace it with block, when you create draw dialect 
instead of pane of faces

Right, to clarify, if your my-face object has other overhead that 
could be externalized, do that, and use blocks that contain a reference 
to the lightest-weight face you can use.

Yes, even better rebolek.

It's exciting to see someone pushing REBOL this way though!

placing bitmaps with draw is possible even in non-AGG versions of 
View

do you think such a big draw block will hold?

hm, not sure, but you can have one face per line (or column - don't 
know which direction Jerrry uses :) filled with draw block

well, I guess it depends on exactly what he is outputting... but 
by what I understand, the display is less an issue than the actual 
loading of all the characters.

if he's just loading characters then keeping images in block is definitely 
better

you can have block like this: [unicode-number image! unicode-number 
image! ...] and then just use SELECT

yep.

Thank you for all your comments. I'll try them out.

How about a /native refinement to return files in 'request-file to 
return files in the native file format?

Why not just write a TO-LOCAL-FILES function to do that for all files 
in a block ?

because it means I could do this

show-text field form any [ request-file/only/native copy "" ]

and not get "none" in the field

umm.. let me rephrase that!

>> form to-local-file any [%hello %""]
== "hello"
>> form to-local-file any [#[none] %""]
== ""

form any [ to-local-file request-file/only/native copy "" ]

form any [ to-local-file request-file/only copy "" ]

which errors if request-file returns none

This doesn't:
form to-local-file any [request-file/only %""]

ahh.. :)

Too easy, eh ?

yeah .. but I think it would be good to still have the switch as 
it reduces the work.

mmm... I'm not convinced.

it's a switch to control what is being returned by a function

I'd like an inverse of the 'case function.  It goes through conditions 
and evaluates the associated block if the condition is *false*.  
The following does what I need:

inverse-case: func [conditions [block!] /local test][
    while [not tail? conditions][
        set [test conditions] do/next conditions
        either test [
            conditions: next conditions
        ][
            return do first conditions
        ]
    ]
    return test
]


Any pitfalls with this approach?  Also, any naming suggestions?  
I was thinking 'assert or 'assert-all.

Example:

assert [
    exists? %rebol.exe [make error! "rebol.exe does not exist"]
    0 < size? %rebol.exe [make error! "rebol.exe is empty"]
]

0 < (size? %rebol.exe)

I don't even have a feeling for assert

so, this is just case, with not in front of each condition?

so, why not just call it .. not-case ?

I guess it's to do with usage: though it functions like 'case, it 
is more like 'all with a step-by-step fallback.

Mmm.. yes, I've needed that kind of expression sometimes.

graham, the paren is not needed there.

chris: a trick i have seen:

if not all [
   msg: "rebol.exe does not exist"
   exists? %rebol.exe
   msg: "rebol.exe is empty"
   0 < size? %rebol.exe
] [make error! msg]

anyway, assert seems a good name to me.

Gabriele, yes I've used this trick, but it's a little uncomfortable.

Hi, syntax question: 

i want to insert a row into a mysql db:

string-block: [ "value1" "value2"
insert db [  "insert into table values (?,?)" string-block ]


this fails (string-block is not evaluated i guess), but i dont know 
how to generate the following

insert db [  "insert into table values (?,?)" "value1" "value2" ]

(which works) using rejoin, remold, join, .. whatever.

merrry christmas  :-)


insert db compose [  "insert into table values (?,?)" (string-block) 
]

and happy xmas to you! 


this works! how to factor out the "insert into .." string into a 
variable?

stmt: "insert into .."
insert db compose [ stmt (vals) ]

does not work, neither does 

insert db reduce [ stmt vals ]

which puzzles me ...

btw. is this the right place to ask?

this is the right place indeed  :-)

like so?

insert db reduce compose [ stmt (vals) ]
== ["insert into .."  "value1" "value2" ]

in REBOL since string datatypes evalutate to themselves, the result 
of the compose (which removes the outer block) will simply stay where 
they are .