World: r4wp

Actually, to keep things as simple as possible for people, all you 
need is Code::Blocks, the CB project file and a slightly modified 
make-make.r that is soon to be checked in by Andreas (or which I 
could provide). Then, you can build from CB (and debug), navigate 
your C source propertly, etc.

Ping me either here or on SO chat if you would like the two files.

This is a tip for where you have those pesky @s in a username. You 
still can't get past that by using %40 in a url as Rebol converts 
those when it evaluates the url but you can do this


>> cmd: open decode-url "ftp://user%40rebol.com:[password-:-ftp-:-rebol-:-com]"
make object! [
    title: "FTP Protocol"
    scheme: 'ftp

    ref: [scheme: 'ftp pass: "password" user: "user%40rebol.com" host: 
    "ftp.rebol.com"]
    path: none
    host: "ftp.rebol.com"
    port-id: 21
    pass: "password"
    user: "user%40rebol.com"
]
port opened ...

saves a bit of typing out the whole spec

now we just have to add a dehex inside the open port actor

Does the old charset patch no longer work?


net-utils/url-parser/user-char: union net-utils/url-parser/user-char 
make bitset! #"@"

didn't try ... !

R3 CALL seems pretty useless to me compared to R2. Is there anybody 
trying to improve it?

I'm working on it, but only for Posix (Linux/OSX) so far.

And starting first with the basics I need (/wait + /input /output 
/error). (So no full scheme & async at the start.)

Great news, Andreas! Linux is good for me and basic input/output 
is enough too. Just what I need.

I discovered some interesting PARSE functionality, which I have not 
known about before. TO and THRU with integer arguments seem to do 
absolute positioning:

>> parse "abcd" ["abc" to 2 "bcd"]
== true


Anyone seen this before? I added a CC ticket as a reminder to document 
it (http://issue.cc/r3/1964) -- if anyone knows about a place where 
this is documented already, I'd be happy about a pointer.

Integers are rule modifiers, so to 2 doesn't actually do anything. 
In order for that to work you would have to use to quote 2.

Please just check for yourself, it behaves as I describe it above 
:)

(And it does so in R2 as well, so I may have picked the wrong group.)

I suggest to put the documentation to


http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/REBOL_Programming/Language_Features/Parse/Parse_expressions



taking into account that this article strives to be as complete as 
possible

The main problem is that when you pass TO an invalud rule, PARSE 
doesn't complain, it just ignores the rule as if you didn't write 
it at all.

Ladislav: thanks, forgot to list that. And it's at least a place 
where we can add it right away.

I think we have a ticket about that TO error ignoring problem.

Brian, it's not an error. TO/THRU support integers.

Andreas, you're right! That's a great feature!

to [2] should work, to 2 shouldn't.

But when to 2 doesn't work, TO doesn't complain.

Why it shouldn't work? It's great.

https://github.com/rebol/r3/blob/master/src/core/u-parse.c#L487

>> parse "abcdefgh" ["abc" to 2 p: (probe p)]
bcdefgh
== false

>> parse "abcdefgh" ["abc" to 7 p: (probe p)]
gh
== false

Rebolek, unfortunatly, you are mis-using TO.   TO is a search.   
 what you are doing is supposed to be done with SKIP

Is there a skip operation in PARSE?

Maxim: SKIP does relative positioning, TO/THRU do absolute positioning.

Well, that behavior seems like an undocumented feature. And a useful 
one :)

Wait, that's right, 2 skip, not skip 2.

what? heh? yuk.  sorry, but how do I then search for integers?

to [2]

I find that becomes quite assymetric in use.  if TO is going to change 
behaviors... relative in some cases and absolute in others... using 
weird datatype conventions (which seem to be completely different 
from the rest) then I'd rather have a new Absolute keyword which 
works just like to on All datatypes.

just like TO 2 ,  but on All datatypes.

Only what would `absolute #"a"` mean?

Move to Parse if this applies to R2 as well.

Applies to R2 as well, so let's move to "Parse".

Andreas, did you discover this by just playing with parse or did 
you read through the source? I wondering if there are other goodies 
in there.

Reading the source.

But this was pretty much the first thing I started looking at, which 
already lead me down the rabbit hole of testing it in R2 and R3, 
looking for documentation, filing a documentation request against 
R3 and discovering and reporting a bug against R3 (and I'll probably 
continue down the hole and fix that bug). So I didn't get much further 
towards other goodies, yet :)

A worthwhile hole, me thinks.

Guys, was there any discussion about the COMPRESS/DECOMPRESS natives 
in R3? Do we really need these functions to use some 'custom' compression 
format that noone in the world uses and when it is based on zlib 
anyway? Wouldn't be better to change this in R3 and use for example 
ZIP format? What do you think?

I remember Carl saying the custom format is more efficient but I 
tried to compress couple binary or text files to compare with ZIPped 
results and I don't see any significant difference that would be 
worth the current format incompatibility.

Earlier discussion of COMPRESS vs Zlib.....Basically, the two are 
almost identical already, so it should not take much to make something 
that is compatible:
     http://curecode.org/rebol3/ticket.rsp?id=328

I agree that it should be easily compatible with other compression 
formats, but it does not take much to make it compatible (can be 
done via a mezz).

Sunanda, thanks for the link.

Henrik, I was more thinking to rip the old zlib code out of Rebol 
and put there some more actual(or even smaller) implementation (latest 
zlib or miniz etc.)

maybe, historically, also the licence was a problem? Remember, R3 
was not open-sourced back at that time ...

I am fully for new, more standard way. I e.g. did not like .RIP format. 
E.g. Winamp uses normal zip format for their skin modules, etc. I 
would like to just hit enter or double click, getting into the archive/package.

Cyphre: that sounds fine to me.