World: r3wp

OK, I just looked at bug#924 and now get what you want to do. It's 
not a bug, it's by design. The code block of a module is bound before 
the block starts executing. You can't define new words in the module's 
context unless those new words are defined in imported modules or 
in the code itself at the top level, or anywhere in the code if the 
module is isolated.

Sorry, bug#928, not 924.

why is that?  this means we can't create new words in a module at 
run-time?

Right. Even if you did you wouldn't be able to use them because the 
code would already have been bound.

aren't module contexts auto-expanding?

but in the script (previously global) context... every word is bound 
to the script context when loaded, why not providing the same for 
modules.  if it hasn't been set when its encountered then you raise 
the proper unset error.

Not really. They are (using a hack), but the binding of the code 
block is done after the imports are processed and before the code 
block starts executing. Once the code block starts executing the 
module context has already been defined. REBOL's evaluation and binding 
rules preclude any automatic rebinding.

but the word exists in the module before the script is done.... its 
just not set yet... so it should be bound in the module and the script 
sets the value, since its running in the context of the module.

what you are saying is that for modules, we need to start declaring 
words?  not very rebolish. 


 I have to do so in slim to keep words local to the calling context, 
 but I would have tought that modules would do so automatically since 
 they replace the global context.

 any new word in the root of the spec block of the module should be 
 added to the module's context and set to unset! just like R2's global 
 context does.

Um, no, a DOne script is running in its own context if it is a module, 
or the current context if not. The current context is not the context 
of the calling code - it exists independently.

Modules have their own context, but they don';t replace the "global" 
context.

Any set-word in the top-level of the module's code block is added 
to the module's context before the module code runs, just like an 
object. If you isolate the module, every word in the module's code 
block and all nested blocks, parens and paths are added to the module's 
context. The only words you need to "declare" are the exported words.

ok that makes sense now.

The bug#928 should be dismissed, marked as "not a bug", and left 
there for future reference. Thanks for helping document R3 :)

but its revealing something deeper... DO is now totally useless.

cause it can't interact with the context its being called from.

well, in the module's perspective anyways.

(totally is a strong word... hehe)

Not totally. It is useful in non-module scripts, and useful for scripts 
done for effect rather than for loading functions.

ok let me do a single little test...

Also, the IMPORT function is basically a fancy DO.

oops noticed that I mismatched the bug number in the code examples 
of bug#928... I'll edit them.

just like slim's LOAD is a fancy DO   ;-)

that would be slim's 'OPEN... starting to be late... hehe

Of the module bugs you have posted, the one that is still pretty 
nasty is bug#923. Needs tracing :(

Good night, be back tomorrow if I can.

ok... here is a twist on bug 928... :-)

if I add 

myfunc: none 


at the top of the module in the supplied example I get this error 
instead:

Evaluating: /D/dev/project/liquid-r3/debug/mymodule-bug924.r
** Script error: print word is not bound to a context
** Where: catch if either either do begin do
** Near: catch/quit code

>>

this one I can't see how it can be proper, even if you can explain 
it.

note... 'PRINT is not bound to any context  !!! wtf?

In which of the 3 files do you put the myfunc: none ?

rebol [
	type: 'module
	name: 'mymodule-bug928
]

print "TADAM ... mymodule-bug928"
myfunc: none
do %myscript.r
myfunc 928

print is global it should accessible from any DO.

Again, I'll be back tomorrow if I can.

sure... better build a convicing argument cause the above is not 
acceptible  ;-)

heheh  good night.

I'm going back to comfortable R2 development now...

It's a different bug than the one reported in bug#928. Good night.

ciao

Apples idea how to do real concurrency (on multicore) .. http://images.apple.com/macosx/technology/docs/GrandCentral_TB_brief_20090608.pdf
-- it seems to be based on something like closures (or blocks from 
smalltalk)  -- it seems simple and clean idea

I posted it here as a food for thought on one of REBOL3 next developments.. 
making it concurrent

Janko: did you post it to the R3 chat too?  - may be better for Carl 
than this place

(I reposted it)

thanks .. I am not on R3 chat. I don't use R3 and R2 has enough secrets 
to discover for me still

So called Erlang style concurrency - brief info - http://ulf.wiger.net/weblog/2008/02/06/what-is-erlang-style-concurrency/

as said before, rebol with erlang like concurrency is a 
dooropener for many professional projects. btw mnesia,
the distributed hybrid database is very nice too.

Here is a great example code using GrandCentral: "DispatchWebServer"

from the description: "A web server that uses one queue per HTTP 
connection. Supports HTTP pipelining and on-the-fly compression. 
Also shows use of dispatch-style signal and vnode event handling."

https://developer.apple.com/snowleopard/library/samplecode/DispatchWebServer/index.html
(ADC account needed)
Whoever is doing R3 on OS X, should have a look 8-)

Any good reason why
    true?
is defined, but not
    false?

Because we already had that function: NOT. It is left to the user 
to declare false?: :not if they wish. That was the rationale at least.

why such an ommision? if we have true?, then we surely have to have 
false? ... it almost feels like a design bug to not have one ..

It might be added later, like empty?: :tail?, but so far we have 
been focusing on missing functionality. Things like that will likely 
be added later on when we are finishing up.