World: r3wp

With R3, it works here.

ok, that is interesting. possibly file system related?

Possibly, as rename works on HD in R2.

the mezz source says that if the file is not found, then it can't 
be accessed.

Henrik, I have no problem with renaming a file on USB stick...tested 
under WindowsXP SP3

Henrik, I can read the file with REBOL command READ in R2.

perhaps it's a timing issue?

it works, if I open the port and find the file by hand

>> read %/f/
== [%data %KeePass/ %TrueCrypt/ %autorun.inf %test.r]
>> rename %/f/test.r %test2.r
>> read %/f/
== [%data %KeePass/ %TrueCrypt/ %autorun.inf %test2.r]
>>

RENAME uses OPEN, not READ.

Seems like, it's the CHANGE command, that rename it.

Reading the source for RENAME, it rename the file by changing its 
name in the directory file. And this doesn't work for some reason 
with USB sticks under OS X using R2.

it does not work for me under Windows either. seems like a port bug.

Cyphre, did you test with R2 or R3?

and yes, it is at the CHANGE on the port, that fails.

I tested with R2...no problems here. Henrik, maybe it has something 
to do with the fact you are emulating the Windows under OSX?

the CHANGE works, if I do it by hand. Then I can rename the file.

Cyphre, Robert reported this from a customer, who I assume is running 
Windows natively.

hmm, hard to say then.

testing one more timing issue...

does not help with timing, but I can still perform CHANGE outside 
the rename function

It works, if you don't give NEW as full path.

I see... testing that

that's how the HELP is telling you ;)

new -- new name (not a path)

:) funny it works on HD though.

Are you suggesting "RTFM!" ? ;)

ok, thanks... testing fix.

LOL, well, I remember I have been bitten by this many years ago so 
from that time I'm using it according to the help ;)

my excuse is that I could not probe the input values for RENAME :-) 
but true, this should not be standard behavior.

Best solution is probably, that it should just work with both ways.

rename capabilities in file handling do not normally allow paths 
to be used (in the OS itself).  otherwise these are a called 'move 
file operations. 


e.g. if you try using paths with rename in the DOS shell, you get 
errors.

John, refinements that can't be translated to path use can be used 
for other reasons in other dialects. REBOL isn't just DO.

When using refinements in dialect contexts where they will be translated 
from paths, it makes no sense to use them, but that is no reason 
to exclude them from the datatype. (That was the official decision 
for R3 when meijeru asked this question in CureCode here in mid-2009: 
http://issue.cc/r3/743)

Sorry, the actual decision was in a different ticket, but the discussion 
was in #743. Sometimes it can be a problem to make multiple tickets 
for the same problem, as opposed to different parts of the same problem; 
it can get a little confusing. Stuff like this is why we rearrange 
tickets more now.

It seems to me to be a sought for explanation of some inconsistency 
in the language. Also from the discussion in that ticket.

Paths <> lists of refinements. It's inconsistent in inconsistent 
situations. Refinements are supposed to be useful for more than function 
specs.

Sure, but do you believe, refinements like /1, /1a and /1.2 are made 
on purpose or just a side effect on how it's implemented?

Refinements like those would be useful as keywords in dialects, for 
instance.

There are a lot of values that can appear in paths that don't translate 
to refinements. Paths and refinements are only related in function 
call syntax; otherwise they are not related.

I don't buy it, as I could just use #1, #1a and #1.2.

There were a lot more tickets related to this, which are unfortunately 
difficult to search for because different people use different terminology 
for this problem, so they don't find the previous tickets. What I'm 
summarixing here is the final decision. I don't remember when that 
decision was made, but I remember the reasoning.

ok

john, have alternate datatypes for dialects is VERY good.   issues 
have long been ignored becaue people forget they exist.

have=having

If this is the case, then I don't understand, why refinements don't 
just act like strings without spaces.

Then you would be able to produce all kinds of refinements, like 
/:1

it just depends how they're coded internally, I guess.

its possible their container doesn't allow it.

I also think that refinements are sort of meant to be path parts, 
so it makes sense to make them compatible with paths directly.  though 
I guess one can give examples of path incompatible refinements.