World: r3wp

oh, I made a mistake. 
I thought /all = /head/tail  .  that's wrong

So, now I've noted two more instances of that crash I reported on 
29-dec-2009. Seems it's not bound to running REBOL in Parallels.

Fish, try here.

The SSL/TLS in 2.7.7 works exactly as well as it did in /Command 
in prior versions. The only change was licensing.

We didn't do anything extra to test the TLS/SSL in 2.7.7.

And there are no known examples of tls://

yeah, that's what I was asking.

ssl works fine

RT likely does some internal testing, but it wouldn't be anything 
new.

Presumably it is a port of the stuff Holger did for the Miami stack 
... which included tls, but .. no one has seen it working.

Spent last night updating R2/Forward - it was about 6 months behind, 
due to various issues, but R3 for those six months hasn't been focused 
on new functions so there isn't much to do. I should be done by today, 
and they should be portable to 2.7.8.

Gald to hear it.  Also, hoping to see some feedback from users.

Which reminds me .. I modified the help function for r2 so that it 
prints a url based on the naming scheme used for r3 functions

See the bottom of this page .. http://rebol.wik.is/Man

Might be useful if r2 docs could be given their own pages as well 
...

Carl, part of the goal of 2.7.8 is to replicate/reuse some of the 
R3 development infrastructure. Would it be possible to make a copy 
of the manual that you generated for R3 based on the Core 2.3 manual, 
for R2 this time? The same structure in an r2 directory minus the 
R3 changes would be best. Then we can change it for more recent R2 
changes, which shouldn't be as hard.

I've been thinking about this problem... with the major website rework 
at full throttle.

The main issue is the huge overlap in some areas, like the function 
database.

The R3 man started off as just a clone of R2, but split up and wikified.

As long as R2 and R3 use the same method there will be less mental 
translation overhead.

Do we need to do aliases, or generate from a common set of data? 
Perhaps common pages for common functions, since R2 people might 
be interested in R3 compatibility notes.

I was thinking that we could use a simple method where we add "=r2" 
for r2-specific notes... same with =r3.

That would work well.

common pages .. split for r2 and r3 use?

that way we can easily update for r4

so each page has a r2, r3 and ... rn section

Common source, different generated pages.

not sure if that is better ... since if you want a comparison, you 
have to look at separate pages.  And you have to maintain more pages 
as well.

Perhaps. With some formatting trickery, the notes for R3 could appear 
as info boxes in the R2 version, and vice-versa. Or they could be 
skipped on separately generated pages, or all put together on one 
page. We should decide which since it would affect the phrasing of 
the docs.

I'd prefer a single document with R2 and R3 sections when they apply. 
 going forward and backward, this will grow as the single source 
of information.


so far, it has respawned so many times in the past, it just gets 
weaker and weaker ... the original docs which had user contributed 
content via the rebol desktop was the best system.  its just gone 
downhill from there.

this latest web site effort is the perfect place to integrate all 
the docs and ACCUMLATE the information into a single and cohesive 
reference.


as a new user, old user and transitioning user, having all the information 
in one page is best for all cases. 
-you don't end up in the wrong docs (new users).

-you can easily see the scope of the improvements (old users comming 
back or tempted to)

-you can much more easily understand and grasp the changes when they 
are comparable in the same sheet (transition).

is it a known bug in R2: random 1970-1-1/0:0:0 --> win32 exception 
(crash)

it works in R3 as expected

nice one

there are a few bugs in RANDOM. perhaps a 2.7.x release should be 
devoted to fixing them.

Adding to RAMBO

in 2.7.7, send has not been fixed, the problem in the current version, 
is if a problem occours, the connection to the mail server isn't 
closed and when reaching the server max connections, send will stop 
working and difficult for the user to know what's up. here is a patched 
version, in addition to force an attempt close, it will return true 
on success, none on failure. hopefully it can be fixed for 2.7.8 
8-)
http://reboot.ch/rebol/send.r

btw, has /SDK 2.7.7 been build? can't find it.

been looking for 2.7.7 changes, maybe a link to this blog http://www.rebol.com/cgi-bin/blog.r?view=0447
sholuld be put on this page http://www.rebol.com/docs/v2-7.html

No new SDK.

Without SDK, I can't upgrade, most of my apps are used in encapped 
form.

and an working intel OSX SDK would be nice... the previous intel 
OSX builds where 100% useless when used with View.

2.7.7 kakks on an Atom chip single board computer running an embedded 
Ubuntu.   From desktop -> REBOL Demos

Seg Fault.   Should I care? (meaning, is Atom even on the expected 
to worky thingy)  I doubt the company will let me use any /View technology, 
but it would be nice to have for personal one-offs.   Some of it 
works, most of i

t kakks.   Always just the Get Smart  "missed it ... by that much" 
  :)

And 2.7.6 ?

what's "kakks" exactly?
I thought atom was x86 compatible?

How about XP on Atom..anyone tried it?

Works great, with all Windows REBOL versions. It's one of my test 
platforms.

Most "kakks" on Linux are distribution-specific, not processor-specific. 
Could you be more specific?

I've run REBOL on Windows with a number of SBCs with no issue.

R2/Forward updated to 2.100.80 (mostly) compatibility. That was the 
last release of R3 that focused on adding functions. Since then we 
have been doing bug fixes, revamps (of modules and PARSE), extensions, 
host code, and cleaning up datatype behavior. These updates will 
make it into 2.7.8.