r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[!REBOL3]

Pekr
22-Sep-2010
[5060x2]
I am fully with Gregg here. At least http(s), ftp, smtp, pop, could 
be allowed by default ...
I often use those protocols in console, and I don't want to become 
'import monkey ...
Maxim
22-Sep-2010
[5062x2]
well voice, your needs on the web  ;-)
hum... the comma there makes the sentence a bit weird... ignore it...
Andreas
22-Sep-2010
[5064x2]
Pekr, import [http ftp smtp pop] is tough typing, for sure.
And as I mentioned above, most likely READ will do the import automagically 
for some "blessed" internal modules.
Maxim
22-Sep-2010
[5066]
there will probably be shortcuts like import_plus  import_full.
Andreas
22-Sep-2010
[5067x2]
Maybe a pseudo-module named 'full, then import 'full will do.
And I'm sure there'll be a way to just put the import in user.r/rebol.r 
and be done with it.
Gregg
22-Sep-2010
[5069]
Andreas, while the typing is simple, do you agree that you aren't 
just going to type it once, and that there is a cognitive overhead 
to defining the imports?
Andreas
22-Sep-2010
[5070]
I agree.
Gregg
22-Sep-2010
[5071]
Again, I'm not necessarily against it, as long as there is a benefit. 
If the benefit is 3ms faster loading and 30K less memory consumption, 
I will probably say that my time is more valuable than that. :-)
Andreas
22-Sep-2010
[5072x2]
3ms would be a startup time improvement of over 10%.
In a CGI use case, that is _definitely_ worth it.
Gregg
22-Sep-2010
[5074]
It wouldn't help a CGI script, because it would need to import CGI, 
HTTP, HTTPS, ... ;-)
Andreas
22-Sep-2010
[5075x3]
Don't be that anxious about your console. Once modularisation is 
done, it is ridiculously easy to get back a REBOL console with all 
modules and then some enabled and ready to use just like nothing 
ever happened.
It is the other way round that is hard.
It would help a CGI script a lot, because it won't have to import 
20 network protocols it never uses. But I sure noticed the ;-) at 
the end :)
Gregg
22-Sep-2010
[5078]
Oh to have to complain about the overhead of 20 standard network 
protocols...<wistful sigh>


But I take you're point, if my CGI is called hundreds of times per 
day, it adds up. ;-)
Pekr
22-Sep-2010
[5079]
I will have to do my own builds - full-fledged rebol - all-inclusive 
:-D
Andreas
22-Sep-2010
[5080]
Yes, and you'll be nicely able to do just that :)
AdrianS
22-Sep-2010
[5081]
yeah, but what about scripts that are put out in the public domain 
- I can see some people forgetting to add includes if their version 
has everything
Andreas
22-Sep-2010
[5082]
Nothing changes in this situation. Either tell people how they should 
run your script (same problem currently: /View or /Core?) or make 
sure your script runs with the plain, unmodified official downloads.
BrianH
22-Sep-2010
[5083x2]
Sorry for not being here earlier to clear up the misconceptions about 
the module system and functionality split :(
Gregg, you don't have to explicitly import modules into every module 
like you do in the Qtask system. Importing means something different 
in R3.
Andreas
22-Sep-2010
[5085]
(Maybe move the discussion to !REBOL3 Modules, while we are at it 
...)
BrianH
22-Sep-2010
[5086x3]
If they were reading !REBOL3 Modules we wouldn't need to have this 
discussion. The info is there already.
But I have a new idea, based on what is possible with the new modules 
(that haven't been integrated yet), so let's move there :)
There is no reason that R3 can't have standard builds that include 
everything. In fact, the blog says as much: Most of the options are 
opt-out based on a command line option, not opt-in. But we definitely 
need some stuff to be opt-in, like graphics stuff on OSes like Linux 
that don't necessarily have the supporting libraries.
Anton
24-Sep-2010
[5089]
Yeah, I was thinking an opt-out command-line option would be the 
best. That way we can keep running with all the functions we've gotten 
used to.
Andreas
28-Sep-2010
[5090]
Added bug#1664 "Rename the issue! datatype". I think the basic wish 
is rather uncontroversial, but naming is hard. If you have any good 
ideas for a name, please comment: 

http://www.curecode.org/rebol3/ticket.rsp?id=1664
Steeve
28-Sep-2010
[5091]
Perhaps we should shouting names here at first.
btw, I propose the shout! type :-)
Gregg
28-Sep-2010
[5092]
Refinements are also words, so I don't think we have to use the *-word 
convention.
Steeve
28-Sep-2010
[5093x2]
yep, I prefer something short and shiny
dry!
Andreas
28-Sep-2010
[5095x3]
ANY-WORD! is a typeset of value: make typeset! [word! set-word! get-word! 
lit-word! refinement! issue!]
Could also use symbol!, but I think it would be a shame to waste 
that nice name on this mundane datatype :)
Or maybe key-word! ...
Maxim
28-Sep-2010
[5098]
keyword! or label!
ChristianE
28-Sep-2010
[5099]
Hm, I was in favour of KEY-WORD! or KEYWORD!, but LABEL! is very 
nice and concise.
Pekr
28-Sep-2010
[5100]
R3 boot-levels - http://www.rebol.net/r3blogs/0337.html
Pekr
29-Sep-2010
[5101]
It seems Carl got over-voted in regards to using integers instead 
of words as boot options args. We will see, if he will change his 
mind :-)
Maxim
29-Sep-2010
[5102x3]
Am I the only one that *REALLY* hates that  'EXPORTS is being renamed 
to 'LIB?
it obfuscates the meaning of what that context is... I REALLY don't 
care to save 4 bytes if it makes the whole idea obscure.
it also makes 'LIB a reserved word in general, which is not really 
cool either.


I would much prefer if carl at least used the full word 'LIBRARY 
and also 'SYSTEM.. . not 'SYS or 'LIB.


I am sure another word is even better than 'LIB, but 'EXPORTS always 
was perfect already.... so why change that?
Pekr
29-Sep-2010
[5105x3]
Max - please read my comment in the blog article, the last one :-)
I even don't like sys, I thought it is the rename of system, but 
that's not true, so we have got system, and sys. However, it seems 
to me, that Carl needs our eye. I mostly agreed to naming conventions, 
but 'lib and using integer for boot-level is imo an oversight ...
Max - here's the diagram - http://www.rebol.net/r3blogs/0334.html
Maxim
29-Sep-2010
[5108]
I am wrtiting a big blog post on Carl's REBOL blog since he posted 
an entire post on this specific rename....
Pekr
29-Sep-2010
[5109]
I also stopped to understand, why some R3 related posts appear in 
Carl's blog :-)