World: r3wp

Recycle yourself if you're worried. Interesting idea on the return 
value.

Thanks BrianH, I'm trying to find a bug, I get random port none not 
open errors but they appear randomly everywhere, only thing sure 
is they come only after using 'send , but it may be word! conflict, 
variable rewrite, etc.. just maybe someone has a better idea where 
to look for.. 8/

looks like an asynchronous event error popping in the middle of execution 
of other code, possible??

like this error:
code: 501
description: access error, Port none not open
near:
[if none? i [return none] 
either
]
where: confirm

or

code: 501
description: access error, Port none not open
near:
[if empty? block: reduce block]
where: confirm


oly thing in common, is where: confirm and that I see only in net-utils, 
any idea ?

even had a recycle..
code: 501
description: access error, Port none not open
near:
[recycle 
wait 0.2
]
where: confirm

here is the net-log, a couple of this (no problem)::

Net-log: ["Opening" "tcp" "for" "esmtp"]
Net-log: [none "220"]
Net-log: "220 domain.com running core"
Net-log: [["EHLO" system/network/host] "250"]
Net-log: {250-domain.com hello mail.local (10.5.32.4)}
Net-log: "250-PIPELINING"
Net-log: "250-8BITMIME"
Net-log: "250-BINARYMIME"
Net-log: "250-CHUNKING"
Net-log: "250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES"
Net-log: "250-ETRN"
Net-log: "250-AUTH CRAM-MD5 DIGEST-MD5 NTLM PLAIN LOGIN"
Net-log: "250 SIZE 2147483647"
Net-log: ["Supported auth methods:" [cram plain login]]
Net-log: ["MAIL FROM: <[majordomo-:-domain-:-com]>" "250"]
Net-log: "250 2.1.5 sender OK"
Net-log: ["RCPT TO: <[user-:-domain-:-com]>" "250"]
Net-log: "250 2.1.0 forwarding to [user-:-domain-:-com]"
Net-log: ["DATA" "354"]
Net-log: "354 send your message"
Net-log: [none "250"]
Net-log: "250 2.6.0 message received OK"
Net-log: ["QUIT" "221"]
Net-log: "221 2.0.0 domain.com closing connection"

than suddenly this one:

Net-log: ["QUIT" "221"]
Net-log: ["Opening" "tcp" "for" "esmtp"]
Net-log: [none "220"]
Net-log: "220 domain.com running core"
Net-log: [["EHLO" system/network/host] "250"]
Net-log: {250-domain.com hello mail.local (10.5.32.4)}
Net-log: "250-PIPELINING"
Net-log: "250-8BITMIME"
Net-log: "250-BINARYMIME"
Net-log: "250-CHUNKING"
Net-log: "250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES"
Net-log: "250-ETRN"
Net-log: "250-AUTH CRAM-MD5 DIGEST-MD5 NTLM PLAIN LOGIN"
Net-log: "250 SIZE 2147483647"
Net-log: ["Supported auth methods:" [cram plain login]]
Net-log: ["MAIL FROM: <[admin-:-domain-:-com]>" "250"]
Net-log: "250 2.1.5 sender OK"
Net-log: ["RCPT TO: <[user-:-domain-:-com]>" "250"]
Net-log: "250 2.1.0 forwarding to [user-:-domain-:-com]"
Net-log: ["DATA" "354"]
Net-log: "354 send your message"
Net-log: [none "250"]
Net-log: "250 2.6.0 message received OK"
Net-log: ["QUIT" "221"]
Net-log: "221 2.0.0 domain.com closing connection"


error code: 501
description: access error, Port none not open
near: [value: either series? :value [copy value]]
where: confirm

note the difference that seams to trigger the problem is the first 
line, the 'quit, where does it come from?

;-- Send as an SMTP batch or individually addressed:
        smtp-port: open [scheme: 'esmtp]
        either only [ ; Only one message to multiple addrs
                address: copy address
                ; remove non-email values
                remove-each value address [not email? :value]

                message: head insert insert tail net-utils/export header-obj newline 
                m
essage
                insert smtp-port reduce [from address message]
        ] [
                foreach addr address [
                        if email? addr [

                                if not show [insert clear header-obj/to addr]

                                tmp: head insert insert tail net-utils/export header-o
bj newline message

                                insert smtp-port reduce [from reduce [addr] tmp]
                        ]
                ]
        ]
        close smtp-port

the port is closed in the last line of send - am i missing something?

it may not be closed in case of errors, but as Brian said, the GC 
will catch that eventually (though maybe we should TRY and rethrow 
the error)

about the above error - it may be an out-of-order event indeed. now 
the problem is finding a simple way to reproduce it.

Hi Henrik, I found Nicks youTube tutorials to be very useful when 
I was searching for stuff. Great help!

I'm inviting a friend of mine here, he is another brilliant langauge 
designer, I'll invite him as Fork (his real name is Brian, but we 
have enough Brians around here.

We're taking over :)

Call him Brain instead ...

That would conflict with even more people here :)

Where ?

Go Brians Go

so is this in a REBOL Survival Guide somewheres?

{  from guys on CORE }
is as good as
comment { 
so is this in a REBOL Survival Guide somewheres?
}
feelin' foolish as another 'good' idea meets my second cuppa java

have to be careful with using { ... } to comment things out though.. 
I wanted to teporarily remove a block of code from a function, but 
I didn't think of that it was the last part of the function so the 
string got returned instead of the real value I wanted :)

ODE
so I though mebbe
;{
 which would only end at a
;}
as }; will not do ...
To take a page from Snobol

  both would have to be unindented, i.e., occupy first and second char 
  of the line

I live in curly-brace land in CURL and a missing brace becomes a 
headache even in a editor with a scroll-u-there brace-matcher

I try never to repress my silly ideas as some have been winners (time 
and $$$ for my employers, true ... but all the same )

It does mean messing with the shift key which is un-rebolish
But I can't see suggesting
;[
block-comment code falls in here
;]
In CURL we have tag-matching using
|tag-this#
there will not be a duplicate tag until we reach
#tagthis|
|| where |# until #| are vulnerable

|| I ask developer sto single line comment with double-bars but someone 
has to use
|# multi-line comment on a single line to show they know how #|

but IF'n 
;[

   fell in the first two chars of a line and ended in first 2 chars 
   at (no shift key to reach { and } )
;]

mm..,
>> new-line [
[    1
[    ] false
>>   [1
]
shouldn't that return [1] ?

That's a known bug, see  http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/rambo.r?id=3902

Hi All, what's happening with Rebol 3?

REBOL 3 as a product, or this world? Well, you can find what is currently 
going on on rebol.com site, rebol 3 section. To summarize - RT is 
revising VID3 design (you might notice extensive blogging about the 
topic). There are also few features being considered for the core 
language, in order to make some constructs more easier/natural.

Once VID3 goes to beta, we will see new styles added, and View kernel 
fixes/improvements, to become beta too. Just after that, rebservices 
will be revised, in order for DevBase to go fully public, and R3 
source codes being uploaded into it. Then community can start porting 
open-source parts of REBOL to the platform of their wish, or the 
community can start to improve/fix those parts ...

temporary fix for bug/3902:
  a: [a                       
[    ]
;   [a
]
  a: new-line/all a off       
;   [a
]

  a: [a                       
[    ]
;   [a
]
  a: new-line/all copy a off
;   [a]

I'm stuck, teaching rebol to my girlfriend, I come across this and 
really as per definition I would expect to get [1] as result and 
not 1

  ? switch
USAGE:
    SWITCH value cases /default case /all 

DESCRIPTION:
     Selects a choice and evaluates the block that follows it.
     SWITCH is a native value.

ARGUMENTS:
     value -- Value to search for. (Type: any)
     cases -- Block of cases to search. (Type: block)

REFINEMENTS:
     /default
         case -- Default case if no others are found. (Type: any)
     /all -- Evaluates all matches (not just first one).
  switch/default 2 [][1] 
;   1
  switch/default 2 [] 1 
;   1

If the default case is a block, it is evaluated -- see: source switch

Thanks Chris, but then I would say it is either inconsistent or the 
description need some refinement

Why is it inconsistent?

>> do [1]
== 1
>> do 1
== 1

Well, you just pointed out that DO is inconsistent as well. As to 
how harmfully unexpected that is is another question. It obviously 
confused Will. Such things can be a problem, because there can be 
a loss of information. You get the same output from two different 
inputs, which can't be reversed.

Thanks Anton 8-) my point was just that for a beginner in the cases 
block there is value and block to execute pairs, so it sounded logic 
 that adding /default I would also need to append a block do be "done" 
I was surprised that case for default accept any and not a block 
, not a problem for me but we needed some minutes to understand that.

It's not inconsistent. It's just the way it is. DO evaluates all 
the values in the block and returns the result of the last evaluation.

From my point of view If anything is inconsistent it seems to be 
when Rebol evalutes blocks.


If you enter a block in the console, it doesn't get evaluated but 
other values do.

>> [1]

== [1]

>> a: 
1
== 1

The block [1] was not evaluted, the word a was.


Though without this possible inconsistency using blocks would be 
a real pain.

not only a pain, it would ruin the foundations of how rebol works 
:-)

(The block *is* evaluated.  Its contents are not.)

>> do [[1]]
== [1]


The console does the outermost 'do, resulting in your first example, 
Peter

Thanks Anton and Izkata. It looks as though the explanation of Will's 
"inconsistency" is that switch evaluates the content of the block 
not the block.

Hello all I'm new to AltmE would like to ask some questions later 
on nice to meet you all

welcome! .-)

Welcome -- glad you finally made it after knocking in the doors (via 
REBOLtalk) for so long!

Welcome!

Welcome David, ask away.

Happy REBOLing!

Thanks guys