World: r3wp

some functionalities are still missing to my mind

Awesome Stevee ... it will free up Brian to do other stuff

If you can help, Steeve, or even get started on it yourself, go for 
it. I don't think there is an API doc yet - the API changes too much.

currently we can't download a single message knowing his Id. We only 
can download all the base, and the remaining messages each time the 
client sync. Not a good system to my mind

Hmm.. I think I need to sart a new group here ... "I'm getting old 
and crumpy " :)

Reichart, CHAT shouldn't be a barrier to entry. We are trying to 
make it more accessible.


The key to me here is once Carl "ok"s this one thing, then the rest 
of us can "help".

Joannak, LOL, agreed...

It's kind of graduated to more of an inner circle thing nowadays, 
Reichart, but good point.

Yup, I'm all for facism (truly, I think it has its place, and works), 
but only for moderators to control s/n, not to supress voices.

The new development platforms of REBOL are all moderated.

We try to not suppress voices (except the wiki spammers on the rebol.net).

we
 arleady do by the very nature of the input system...

I'm the co-founder of BIL (www.BILConference.com) , an open conference, 
the rule is "OPEN".  That simple.  Even from teh get go, my co-founders 
started trying to be "open" but controlling others.
It was really interesting... 



But, I STOOD STRONG on, let everyone do anything...  and... it worked, 
REALLY WELL.


That is not to say that as a group (mob) we did not "direct" people 
to help improve the s/n.

(delay, phone call) I agree about the input system, definitely, which 
is one of the reasons I encourage people to write their own chat 
clients. I'm not too good at writing REBOL GUIs, and don't have a 
web server to host a client. DevBase could work very well with a 
web client interface, afaict, if someone wants to write one of those. 
Heck, it's scriptable enough to integrate with Qtask, in theory.

The current chat client interface works well enough for me, but that's 
likely an outlier thing.

I guess what I'm really asking is, why is this not just like MediaWiki 
(which is behind Wikiepedia)?  That simple.

The community wiki is running on MediaWiki.

Are the docs (examples) for all words in REBOL (2, or 3) in that?

Examples and docs, but it's not comprehensive in either the manual 
or DocBase yet. Needs work.

Well, I'm not trying to be a pain here..... so I will leave it at 
this....


When...anyone, can walk up to any REBOL word, learn about it, add 
to it, talk about it, for all others to share in and learn from, 
then... I'm happy.

Wikis need work too. Making them open doesn't magically get people 
to contribute their time. The wiki has been open for more than a 
year and only a few people contribute to it.

Ok, point me to the word PARSE, on a wiki, where I can edit the page 
about it, or add my two cents, it is very possible I'm just blind 
here...

Btw, thanks Fork for being one of the most prolific of those people 
these days.

Hmm.. To get back into noob level questions: Is it so that Rebol 
don't support recursion?  Or will some variant of Function allow 
it to call itself without hassle?

Rebol supports recursion from day 1 .. 10+ years ago

http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Table_Of_Contents
http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Parse_Project

Someone was reorganizing the wiki recently with no understanding 
of the REBOL language, so a lot of pages were lost in the shuffle. 
I don't know where things are now. The price of being open, I guess. 
The new PARSE documentation hasn't yet been converted from an improvement 
project to documentation. Have at it :)

Ok.. This is one of those moments I shoudl have tried it ..

ahah

>> countdown: func [ n ][ print n  if not zero? n [ countdown -1 
+ n ]]
>> countdown 10
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

>> how: func [s][unless tail? s [prin to-char s/1 how next s]]
>> how [82 84 70 77]
RTFM== none

Most of the other PARSE docs are strewn amongst the conversations 
where we just redid the whole thing lately. It was quite a project. 
Those discussions are in the blog comments, CureCode and that parse 
project wiki, very little in chat.

Steeve is not very tolerant :)

Next discussion:  The Multi-dimenssional parsing proposal.
(to allow the parsing of 2 series at once with parallelism)

this topic does say "Ask any question ... "

well, just a joke Graham

there's also the wiki book http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/REBOL_Programming/Language_Features/Recursion

even one on http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/REBOL_Programming/Parse
for those who feel the need ...

Some things you don't notice from the inside, until you're on the 
outside again. In support of making things open: I've recently read 
up on a few technologies and, while their blog entries and such are 
very nice, there were a number of typos. I wanted to just correct 
these little things, but I can't. I can't help in a very small, controlled 
way without talking to someone first, setting up an account, getting 
permission of some kind, etc. And that's just too much trouble to 
do for more than a small number of sites. 


It will get better, and it shouldn't be too hard to have even simple 
rules to control anonymous edits, but right now things are often 
all-or-nothing.

 To get back into noob level questions:
 


What is more noob than "is there documentation that explains things?"


Gregg, right, so in simple terms, REBOL is so small, and so much 
a clique... what do we have to lose by not just opening everything 
up? (Docs I mean).

Accuracy.

Assming you meant "what do we have to lose by just opening everything 
up?"

If you meant what you said, then what we have to lose is appearances. 
We don't gain any help, just reputation.

How is accuracy lost, I'm not suggesting unmoderated wikis, just 
ease of access?

Accuracy is only lost, if the editor doesn't have any contact with 
us, so we can talk to him/her, which seems to be the case of the 
recent edits.

one problem I see with opening up the wikis to a larger degree is 
that the number of moderators (or perhaps more accurately, the number 
of people who are qualified to be moderators and who have the time 
and are willing to vet any changes/additions)  is limited. Maybe 
once the community grows ease of access could be increased.

I can also see that it is somewhat of a catch-22 since the community 
might not grow due to poor documentation. I think I lean towards 
leaving things as they are for now since, as was pointed out, you 
can become an 'editor' without too much hassle.

if we grow much more, we end up with cells of users that don't communicate 
or don't discover eachother and we might get more situations like 
what happened for the wiki.

I lost complete interest in DocBase. While BrianH kind of welcomed 
structural changes one user dit, I feel completly lost. That persono 
completly ruined the DocBase. He has zero knowledge about R3 progress, 
and hence mixed stuff from Gabriele's VID and Carl's VID attempt. 
The info, which was nicely on one page, is now scattered to myriads 
of subpages, etc. This sucks ...

I prefer R3 Chat (and WIP wiki) Carl did, because there is user ranking, 
and only users of certain ranking can do changes. Maybe it can be 
done with the MediaWiki too, I don't know ...

Henrik, Adrian, the good news is, you already have your wish... and 
therefore, things will stay pretty much the same...