World: r3wp

I stand corrected.

A Beta test version of the SDK with the 1.3.1 fixes and changes is 
now available for current SDK developers. Contact REBOL via feedback 
or email Cindy if you would like to try it.

I have recently started testing with Rebol/View 1.3, and decided 
to

purchase Rebol/SDK.  I have a function in one of my scripts that 
was
working in View during testing, but as soon I start using the SDK
binaries it no longer... um... functions.


In the function, I am trying to set a value in an array using an 
index
variable.

In view, I could do:
   values/:index: value
But in the SDK, I get:
   ** Syntax Error: Invalid word -- :index:

Again, any help would be appreciated.

Thank you,
robert w. dumond

from the mail list

bata-sdk. also noted on the ML IIRC.

But the subdirectory is not mentioned by sunanda, and not linked 
public.

plis help

kernel-lib: load/library %kernel32.dll
WriteFile: make routine! [
        hFile                   [integer!]
        lpBuffer                [integer!]
        nNumberOfBytesToWrite   [integer!]
        lpNumberOfBytesWritten  [integer!]
        lpOverlapped            [integer!]
        return:                 [integer!]
 
    ] kernel-lib "WriteFile"

it does not actit

how do to write in rebolu this ?

[DllImportAttribute("kernel32", SetLastError=true)]


        private static extern IntPtr CreateFile(string _lpFileName, 
                                           uint _dwDesiredAccess,

                                                 uint _dwShareMode,

                                        uint _lpSecurityAttributes, 

                                       uint _dwCreationDisposition,

                                        uint _dwFlagsAndAttributes, 

                                              uint _hTemplateFile);

        [DllImportAttribute("kernel32", SetLastError=true)]

        private static extern bool WriteFile(IntPtr _hFile, void* _lpBuffer, 
        uint _nNumberOfBytesToWrite, uint* _lpNumberOfBytesWritten, uint 
        _lpOverlapped);

        [DllImportAttribute("kernel32", SetLastError=true)]
        private static extern bool CloseHandle(IntPtr _hObject);

        [DllImportAttribute("kernel32", SetLastError=true)]

        private static extern bool DeviceIoControl(IntPtr _hDevice, uint 
        _dwIoControlCode, void* _lpInBuffer, uint _nInBufferSize, void* lpOutBuffer, 
        uint _nOutBufferSize, uint* _lpBytesReturned, uint _lpOverlapped);

unsiged integers can safely be casted to integers, you sould know 
that some dll's wont work just because the need special arguments 
like pointers to certain data etc... nay whay why do you need to 
write a file using windows API can't you use rebol ?

btw lpOverlapped  is a pointer to a structure OVELAPPED you can pass 
a structure pointer from rebol using, lpOverlapped [struct! [(OVERLAPPED)]]
the scructure looks like this 
OVERLAPPED: make struct! [
	Internal		[integer!]
	InternalHigh		[integer!]
	Offset			[integer!]
	OffsetHigh		[integer!]
	hEvent			[integer!]
] none
again this still may not work ....

how small a Rebol executable can you build with the SDK? if you take 
away everything? just curious...

300k from memory.

thanks

Base is a little smaller (~250K), but that's close enough. If you 
need GUI stuff, it will be around ~550K minimum (using rebface) or 
~650K using all of view and VID..

If space is an issue, you can save a lot of space by removing protocols 
that aren't required. I got a few with full VID based but with only 
http protocol supported.. 506kb, 

I'm sure I could drop another 80-100 if I switched to using rebface.

Good place to discuss a remote encapping service? The idea would 
be for RT to provide a service that would allow you to encap source 
code without the SDK. RT encaps your files and provides you with 
an executable that works for 5 minutes. If you pay a fee (5$?), you'll 
get no time limitation.


This could be for people who can't afford the SDK, want to use the 
encap facility to see what it's all about or simply only need to 
encap a single application.

an encap service as been discussed many times in the past. there 
are a number of problems in doing it.

there could be further limitations, such as only allow up to 50 kB 
of source code, or only to a specific platform.

ok...

the problem is mainly that the process cannot be automated, because 
anyone going to encap a submission must verify that it complies with 
the encap licensing terms.

which basically would mean a rewrite of /encap?

I think it would mean rewrite of licensing.

no, it's not the code that's the problem. the encap process in itself 
can easily be automated (see the detective builder); but, the licensing 
terms don't make this possible.

i.e. if you allow anyone to encap anything for $5, you get /Command 
for $5.

well, it shouldn't be anything. there should be limits to the size 
of the source you could encap, plus isn't it possible to encap with 
only ordinary REBOL/View capabilities?

if it were possible to encap stuff with /command abilites, you'd 
already own /command to test your source prior to encapping...

DocKimbel once told me, that with his R#, encapping is so trivial, 
that he even hesitates to call it a product ;-)

henrik, if you only get normal /View, there is no point in the encap 
service. i.e. it wouldn't help the com interface project at all.

also, it's not true that you would need to have command already.

you just encap a script like:   forever [do ask ">> "]

and you got /Command for $5.

:-) nice tip :-)

but licence forbids to expose rebol interpreter, so it would be against 
it ...

I just wonder, if SDK is really so expensive fro ppl? I am from CZ, 
we have bad salary to USD/EU ratio, yet I afforded to buy myself 
an SDK ....

petr: exactly, licensing forbids it, and that why you can't have 
an automatic encap service where anyone can submit a script and you 
hand back an exe.

well, that's not really what I would want... all I would need would 
be proper encapping of my small Rebol/View scripts so that friends 
can run them with a single click, which is one of the major gripes 
I have when I need to distribute hobby scripts. They don't want to 
mess with the console or the viewtop (believe me, I tried).


If I were to use functions in my scripts that are /command only, 
the service should not allow encapping of source that contains /command 
functions. This way you'd need to own /command and/or the SDK to 
make /command capable exe's.

IIRC someone posted to ml kind of free encapper :-) It was based 
upon generating of zip archive, containing View interpreter, which 
is free to distribute, plus packed scripts ... that could be an alternative 
way for ppl, no?

Henrik - there are two versions of SDK - /Command and "normal" (without 
command features, just pro ones available), which is cheaper ...

pekr, I thought the difference was /Command and /Pro functions...

yes, that is the difference ...

but you don't get /Command functions for free. that would be the 
trick to get you to buy the SDK as opposed to using an encapping 
service

...and I agree with you, that sometimes ppl don't want to install 
something ... the worst thing is, that in many cases, ppl are behind 
the firewall/proxy, and rebol fails here - blocking like mad....

do you need /Command functions?

if you're just distributing a script to friends, then what about 
just a zip file with view, the script, and a windows link that starts 
view with the script?

inability to freely encap ppl's work (and /Pro key is for nothing 
- you can develop features non pro users can't use ;-) is big obstacle 
imo. That is why I think plug-in might be important product - it 
is about deployment - with plug-in aproach ppl just think that things 
work in one click :-)

yes Gabriele, that might be the way - in fact, someone posted such 
"encapper" link to ml, so that work was already done .... noone responded 
IIRC ....

gabriele, too messy :-) "Do I really need that big R icon on my desktop?" 
It has to be one click to run. Grandma style.