World: r3wp
[!REBOL2 Releases] Discuss 2.x releases
older newer | first last |
Endo 5-Feb-2010 [1142x2] | Why secure does not accept |
Why secure does not accept block! argument? secure [net allow] ;works b: [net allow] secure b ;fails | |
WuJian 5-Feb-2010 [1144] | try "secure :b" |
Endo 5-Feb-2010 [1145] | it works! thanks a lot. But it is not documented in core.pdf |
WuJian 5-Feb-2010 [1146] | >> secure b ** Script Error: Invalid argument: b ** Near: secure b b was treated as a word like 'allow 'ask , so use :b instead, to get its value |
Endo 5-Feb-2010 [1147] | I see. but help text says it accepts word! and block! so it is confusing. |
Janko 5-Feb-2010 [1148x4] | the feature of rebol that function can accept a word without evaluating it even if it's an action word makes rebol more nice to look at but at cases as this it can cause confusion |
without it you would have to ad ' in this case, liek this >> foreach 'item block [ print item ] | |
it's a little less nice looking but it would be more uniform and logical .. the way of "least surprise" because now when you write your own functions liek map-each you don't know or make it look like foreach with or make all custom functions not accept active words which makes your code more systematic and easyer to understand , but then your function is not in style with rebol's foreach forall ..etc | |
my vote would be to not have the option to to do >> foreach item block [ pring item ] .. it would make a language more uniform , although a little less cool :) | |
Oldes 5-Feb-2010 [1152] | I don't think it will be accepted. |
Janko 5-Feb-2010 [1153] | it's just a "vote". I don't expect them to change the language |
BrianH 5-Feb-2010 [1154] | I vote nay. |
Janko 5-Feb-2010 [1155] | and what is your reason for nay :) |
BrianH 5-Feb-2010 [1156x4] | I like lit-word arguments - they are very useful. Uniformity is overrated. |
Lit-word arguments allow you to use functions to fake the kind of stuff that other languages need syntax for. | |
In some ways, REBOL is more uniform than most languages (other than Lisp without macros or special forms). | |
How is this related to R2 releases? | |
Janko 5-Feb-2010 [1160] | yes, I agree that this makes rebol's ordinary functions look like other languages' syntax / special forms .. that's why I said it's cool and confusing :) .. I didn't notice this is only for releases .. I was replying to Endo |
BrianH 5-Feb-2010 [1161] | Yeah, we're trying to keep this group on topic. We haven't written a DevBase chat client for R2 yet, so the development discussions of R2 releases are often in this group. Some people don't like to use chat, even if not using it limits the extent to which they can participate in R2 development (they can't submit changes directly, for instance). |
Gregg 6-Feb-2010 [1162] | I wouldn't want to lose lit-words, but they do create issues at times. |
Janko 6-Feb-2010 [1163] | moved to Core |
Andreas 12-Mar-2010 [1164x2] | If anybody has archived some historical versions of REBOL, I'd be grateful if you contact me by private message. Specifically, I'd be looking for 2.3.* for Linux x86 and 2.5.0 for Linux, but any version pre-2.3.0 would also be great. |
I still have 2.3.0 for Win32 lying around, but the Linux versions seem to have vanished into bit nirvana :) | |
Graham 12-Mar-2010 [1166x2] | sparc ? |
I think I have an old Solaris version around somewhere | |
Andreas 12-Mar-2010 [1168x2] | Sure, if you have it handy :) |
Especially if it is pre-2.3 :) | |
Graham 12-Mar-2010 [1170x3] | What year was 2.3 ? |
I have Solaris versions with date stamps ( the date I copied them to the server ) of 2000, 2001, and 2003. I think these versions were susceptible to creating zombie dns processes | |
http://rebolsolaris.s3.amazonaws.com/rebol-old http://rebolsolaris.s3.amazonaws.com/rebol101 http://rebolsolaris.s3.amazonaws.com/rebolnew | |
Geomol 13-Mar-2010 [1173] | Is it an idea to collect all the historic REBOL versions at one place? Like the Workbench Nostalgia: http://www.gregdonner.org/workbench/ |
Reichart 13-Mar-2010 [1174] | It is, it would be nice to collect ALL REBOL "everything" in one place somewhere.... |
Rebolek 13-Mar-2010 [1175] | Google? |
Reichart 13-Mar-2010 [1176] | No :) We need a place, page, website, (i.e. the original purpose of REBOLCentral) where a new person can come, and in a really nice layout EVERYTHING REBOL is there. It points a person to everything else. The Library, the blogs, the knoweldge of this place, a REBOL "ReadMeFirst.txt" if you will. |
Rebolek 13-Mar-2010 [1177] | We need that for long time and there's still nothing. I wonder if anybody's interested in this project or if everybody's happy with the way it is. When yes (everybody's happy now), I can understand why the 'outsiders' describe us as "elitists". |
Steeve 13-Mar-2010 [1178] | I don't think it's possible to gather all the matter and usefull links in one page. Rebol.org, Rebol.net and Rebol.com are enough to connect with the rest, to my mind. |
BrianH 13-Mar-2010 [1179x2] | I want access to old R2 versions to be able to push back the version compatibility of R2/Forward. |
Might have them already though - going to check my archives. A list of the old platform numbers would be nice too. | |
Andreas 14-Mar-2010 [1181x3] | Brian: http://www.rebol.com/release-archive.htmlshould have all of the old platform numbers |
Graham: thanks, will check those Solaris binaries out to see what versions they are. | |
And I think I know where to retrieve my old binaries. Should have Linux (4.2) REBOL/Core 2.3.0 by tomorrow. | |
BrianH 14-Mar-2010 [1184] | Thanks, Andreas. It looks like R2/Forward should support 2.5.0 if it can :) |
Andreas 14-Mar-2010 [1185x2] | Graham, thanks a lot! rebol-old is 2.3.0, rebolnew is 2.5.0 and rebol101 is 2.5.5. all /core for solaris sparc (10.1) |
Heh, very nice! All of those binaries run as-is on a Sun Fire T1000 :) | |
Graham 14-Mar-2010 [1187] | Just shows how long I've been using rebol for cgi work! |
Gregg 16-Mar-2010 [1188] | Confirming, HTTPS should work (after doing a net-install call) on Core 2.7.7.4.2? |
PeterWood 16-Mar-2010 [1189x2] | The docs state that it is in View/2.7.7 |
http://www.rebol.com/docs/ssl.html | |
Gregg 16-Mar-2010 [1191] | So, View but not Core. Bummer. |
older newer | first last |