World: r3wp

Anyway - good to know, there is still some secret mode to reveal 
:-) So maybe one day Carl describes how to utilise two separate buffers 
:-)

I think it would be good if people actually tested the schemes!

OK, I will do few tests with my FTP Linux server, during the evening 
...

It would be good to get these all tested and written to a usable 
level while the code is still fresh, and while the spirit is willing 
...

Of course, Carl's code review may change all of that ...

With the latest code I got an error before the lookup event connecting 
to imap.aim.com and then it was ok.  Odd.

got an error event before the lookup event

Carl is going to review the code? What's going to be the outcome? 
Full rewrite? Or just some methodology/aproach suggestions?

I think that depends on the review :)

Right, that was the plan ..to get Carl to review schemes and advise 
on a "best" practice.

Carl is usually responsive when you give him something to look at.


if all he has to do is direct users into improving code, his intellect 
is much more usefull than if he is occupied hammering code out and 
sifting thru tedious RFCs.

I've got this in my network code ..

			;find/part msg join generator " OK" 8
			join generator " OK" = copy/part msg 8


and can't figure out why the first line does not work but the second 
does ....

Somewhere I came across a document that showed how 'open, 'read etc 
would search the schemes to invoke the correct actor.  Anyone know 
the link?

weird, I thought exactly the opposite. Why the second case is working 
?
Should be:
(join generator " OK") = copy/part msg 8

For the firt case, i'd rather prefer.
>> find/match msg join generator " OK"

hmm.. I didn't need the ( )

I use find/part because I want to match at the start of the line

of the series

Then, use find/match

But using Parse is better to my mind (less memory overhead)
>> parse msg [generator " OK" to end]

True ... but still there's a bug in find/part

Isn't there some new way to return true from parse without the "to 
end" now?

(break/return true) but i don't know if it's faster

Yeah .. that's what I was thinking of

but you must have a loop

>> loop 1 [parse msg [generator " OK" (break/return true)]]

compose [ (generator)  ...

with a sub-rule...
>> match: [(break/return true)]
>> loop 1 [parse msg [generator " OK" match]]

why the parens in your sub rule?

because break is not a part of the parse dialect.
It's a regular function

ahh... not thinking

just looking ... break does appear in the new parse dialect

but not break/return

And in the R2 parse dialect, but the meaning in both cases is different 
from the function.

brianh, what's causing the find/part error?

parse documentation is very skimpy .. .need lots of new examples

There are more than a few FIND bugs. Check CureCode to see if yours 
is covered already.

graham, can't you just use the return keyword in R3 parse?

PARSE documentation is actually pretty extensive, but not yet organized. 
There was a lot of thorough research conducted during the parse project 
and revamp. It just hasn';t been put into the docs yet.

it's not there in curecode

but it's more subtle ... as it works outside the function

(reworking on ftp scheme currently )

going to implement ftp site to site transfer ?  :)

yup, i need it for PC to AS400 file's exchanges

So, I have some bugs in my scheme?

and remote commands too

well, missing lot of commands :)

oh yeah ...minimal functionality ... for someone else to finish ;)

cwd: func [ mbox [port!] dir [string!]][
	if in mbox/scheme/actor 'cwd [
		mbox/scheme/actor/cwd dir
	]
]

which is what I have in my imap scheme ... could use similar for 
ftp

actor: [
	cwd: funct [ dir [string!]][
			write mbox compose [ SELECT (dir) ]
			read mbox
		]
]