World: r3wp

well, there's me (GUI), BrianH (smart guy), Brian Tiffin (docs), 
Cyphre (graphics), Gabriele (network/GUI), Pekr (communications), 
Maarten (network), and about 10 others who've made contributions. 
Didn't really want to mention people in case I forget important ones.

I understand.  But that is helpful, thanks.

I think Steeve and Doc are involved in some manner as well.

oh yes. see? I forgot some. :-)

Paul: when you were asking about default arguments to funcs before, 
I think it's a "conceptual" limitation because of stuff like this 
example (for example that oneortwo can take 1 or 2 arguments : >> 
oneortwo 2 add 3 2  .............  and most things like if either 
are expressions which means they return a value (which you sometimes 
need and sometimes not )  you can "assume" that you will always require 
result of add because it has no side effect, but for example : >> 
oneortwo 2 if [ insert copy [ ] 1 ] ..... there is no theoretical 
way to determine if result of if SHOULD be taken by oneortwo or not

thats probably why refinements were invented , that also add a lot 
of new

OCaml for example has optional arguments , but you HAVE to use parentesis 
like this oneorwto 2 ( add 3 2 ) and every value that get's returned 
from expression must sink into something explicitly ..  so if you 
don't need it you have to still use     >> let _ = somefunc 10 in 
<<.. or >> ignore ( somefunc ) ; ..

(but I am a ocaml newbie too)

[Virtual blocks] What do you think of an option to allow fixed-size 
records only, so that there is no need to create a file index (faster 
access but data file possibly bigger)

yes, I like that.

yes that would be a cool option too

Steeve ... are there any chances to see this also in R2?

theoricaly yes, schemes exist under R2 too

do you want R2 version at first ?

BrianH:  ELSE  -  I never used it. I don't care if it's removed.

well at least there is a chance :) .. well I don't know when I will 
be able to try R3 at all, and even less when I will be able to use 
in for real projects... that's why I am asking, but I don't "urgently" 
need it right now so no worries for me

I like that you focus on R3 because this all moves it forward too, 
so hopefully we will get to it sooner than later

BrianH, I first noticed ELSE now that you mentioned it :-) Don't 
need it.

Fixed sized would only be faster in the sense of retrieving specific 
records.  Traversal is actually slower.

But I would say offer it anyway because this would make the virtual 
block scheme more versatile for the respective application.

will R3 have something similar than coroutines or a way to simulate 
cooperative or preemptive (green-not on os level threads) concurrency?

(I imagine that if not otherwise this could somehow be made in libraries 
with its code is data feature)

R3 has tasks, which I believe are OS threads.

wow, really? this is cool.. usually scripting langs have only green 
(not-os) threads

Tasks are very interesting, as it will render slow and large cooperative 
threading libraries for R2 moot. You create a task like you create 
a function and it can be used in the same way, except you are returned 
to the console right after calling it. Also networking is completely 
async on the lower level, which helps speed up network operations. 
You can achieve similar things in R2 through hacks, but it's not 
well documented or stable.

Janko, I can't be completely sure that they will stay that way. This 
has something to do with the Wildman project, which is about getting 
R3 to run standalone on embedded hardware with a minimal OS underneath. 
So whether R3 will then employ its own threading model or always 
use OS threading, I don't know... and Wildman is not something that 
will happen soon.

Tasks are available in the old public alpha, but they may not be 
stable.

what is that project ???? Who is working on WILDMAN ?

well it's very nice to know that something is being developed in 
this too.. cooperative threading and async io is a lot already.. 
if there will be native threads it's just a very big additional bonus, 
(even factor, which is very progressive lang. in terms of core features 
and libs will have os level threads only in version 2.0 for example)

Steeve: I suppose some wild man :)

Steeve, not an active project yet. This was talked about when R3 
went internal alpha.

http://www.rebol.com/priorities.html<-- near the bottom. Just replace 
2007 with... 2012 or something. :-)

[virtual blocks] it would be more convenient to create a new scheme 
for fixed-size records. I don't want double the size of the current 
 scheme just for a new option.
(Most of important actors have to be rewritten)

Ok Henrik, it's only one of the zillions of Carl projects we'll never 
see ;-)

:-)

Have you tried any stress/performance tests on VBS yet?

Not really because one major bug on file scheme block me.

ticket #552 in curecode

Steeve virtual blocks scheme still at megashare? I've bad luck trying 
to download.

give me a convenient place and i post it

I can host it for you.

Steeve, if you paste the code to me privately, I can host it.

you don't have the first version i posted Henrik ?

nothing has changed currently

ok, I'll find it again.

ahah...

http://hmkdesign.dk/rebol/r3/idx.r

I'll post on rebdev too.

THNX 2 U both

ok, thanks