World: r3wp

Like I said, ", " could be replaced with " & " and it would do as 
well. Would you like that? Either is considered standard English...

Would it be possible to make R3 a Windows-Host-Script language?

Yes, but it wouldn't be useful unril we have user-defined datatypes 
(to wrap the OLE objects in).

unril -> until

There might be a workaround for that with extensions, but I'd wait 
until we have the next host kit before making an ActiveScripting 
host, so we can use embedded extensions and the revamped command! 
type.

Ok. IMO we need callbacks as well. And a good documentation how this 
will be integrated into the event system.

The plan has always been to implement callbacks and integrate them 
into the event system through devices.

But you never know until it happens.

Is there a way to get the literal of a function parameter? 

Example:
 "my-funct my-data" and "my-funct: funct [parameter]..."



Can I get 'my-data within my-funct?

In R2 I could write: in object 'self, but no longer in R3. What's 
the equivalent in R3?

Those things shold be defined by Carl ASAP, as those are pretty fundamental. 
We talk about u-types for ages, but noone knows, how in fact those 
are they going to be implemented or how they will work in the end. 
Ditto for callbacks :-)

BIND? - and it works in R2 as well.

That's the equivalent to in object 'self, bind? object.

As for your first question, try a lit-word parameter like this: my-funct: 
funct ['parameter]...

Unless you want no evaluation at all, not just for words, then use 
a get-word parameter. Yes, that's an awkward way to refer to it - 
it's already been reported.

In R2 I could write: in object 'self, but no longer in R3. What's 
the equivalent in R3?

 - I do not understand all that "harakiri" going on in R3 with 'self. 
 Nevertheless, the expression:
    first bind [self] object
works

Self is still there but within its own context which is the way it 
should be.

Nevertheless, I think, that the fact, that
    first bind [self] object]
works, while
    in object 'self
does not, is at least surprising. What is that good for?

Probably to do with the new changes allowing us to protect object 
code.

Inconsistent

what is? - be more specific.

See above

Again, it may have to do with protection features.

No, as long as one of the above expression works, while the other 
does not

I don't know how you can say "NO" Ladislav.

just easy: the functions are equivalent for me - I do not mind whether 
I use the former or the latter. If one of them works, while the other 
does not, it is inconsistent, and not protecting

Protect feature is still evolving at last check so I don't see how 
you can say it isn't part of that direction.

well, "part of that direction" - maybe, just not working in this 
case, as demonstrated

Then CureCode it, and maybe Carl will answer that one :-)

Brian, if "Returns TRUE if the values are equal and of the same datatype 
& case." is OK, but "Returns TRUE if the values are equal and of 
the same datatype and case." is not, that's where I think uor priorities 
are out of order. 


Maybe the first thing we should do is write a clear goal for doc 
strings. What is their main purpose and what constraints should be 
placed on them for each purpose (or maybe I just haven't seen the 
doc that does this)? For example, are they be limited for console 
output only when listed with other funcs, or also when used with 
HELP individually? Should ? be short help and ??? link to a detailed 
help page for funcs? If console group list is the constraining factor, 
can it truncate and ellipsize longer strings?

Is there a difference between an object! or context! Any rules wheren 
to use one or the other? I use contexts more likea "class"(data, 
functions) and objects mor like blocks.

I think that modules are the way to go, but than why we have context! 
and object! ?

wait... there is not context! datatype...

Hmm... true. So CONTEXT seems to be just a short-cut.

How about an unblock function? This would help in cases like:

reduce [words-of my-object]
== [[my-words...]]

reduce [unblock words-of my-object]
== [mywords ...]

Your unblock returns a series of words. You need to have them in 
a series (a block). You can do these:

first reduce [words-of my-object]
or simple
words-of my-object

I can't see, an unblock would be possible.

word-of returns a block

yes

So
unblock words-of ....
should return what?

Remember every function and operator in REBOL returns exactly one 
return value. Some would argue, PRINT doesn't, but it returns a value 
of the unset! datatype. If you need to return many words, you have 
to put them in one return value, like a block.

>> type? print "Hello, World!"
Hello, World!
== unset!

Example: I want to get

["some string" word1 word2 word3]

If I write:


reduce ["some string" words-of ...] will return: ["some string" [word1 
word2 word3]]

So I need to get rid of the 2nd block.

You can get that by:

reduce ["some string" first worlds-of ...]

sorry

haha, late here. Let me think.

Try this:

join ["some string"] words-of ...

I see, what you want, but you can't do that in REBOL, because a function 
can't return more than one value.

Yep, used the JOIN as well. But thought it's a generic pattern.

Has 'compose been removed or changed in R3?
compose [ "some string" (words-of ...) ]
== [ "some string" word1 word2 word3 ]