AltME groups: search

Yes... Ladislav reminds me some basic math! God, I felt so stupid 
about this associativity bug! 

The reason why I developped parse-expression.r is because I need 
it to build an companion app for one of the best math book: Calculus 
3d edition from Smith & Minton! For now, I have developped a rebol 
library to transform any vid face into a function plotter, and parse-expression.r 
allows me to use human readable expression in the gui instead of 
guru rebol code :)

about #4172 fix in  2.7.2... YIPPE! 


can you imagine that this has been there for years! just show how 
some things can slip through the cracks.  it prevented a few faces 
from being pre-set within VID dialect.

or by timers is carl just referring to the VID based rate/time events 
rather than a Core accessible timer?

2.7.7 release

Call
dockimbel:

About CALL console window issue, the CreateProcess( ) win32 call 
has flags to hide the window. There just need to be set.

In the STARTUPINFO used by CreateProcess( ), just set in dwFlags, 
the STARTF_USESHOWWINDOW flag and set wShowWindow to SW_HIDE.

maybe add a new refinement and let the users decide when they want 
to see the console window ?
or maybe just /show

Paul:
Run is not enabled

Graham

Is anyone concerned that shell windows opened in Encap do not contain 
the correct window title?
Rambo #3660 ( reported march 2005 )

Brian

For me, the big question is what kind of release we will be doing:

- 2.7.7: Patching glaring bugs in a few natives, VID fixes, and continuing 
the backports and mezzanine fixes.

- 2.8.0: Backporting some of the R3 native changes (function, not 
infrastructre), and the above.

I think that the decision a long time ago was to focus on R3 as a 
priority, and just patch up R2 as necessary.

At the very least, I would want a 2.7.7 to have a version that fixes 
post-2.7.6 mezzanine bugs, and 2.7 series regressions vs. 2.6.3.

Henrik
We also need to implement BrianH's new window resize scheme.

Ashley,Anton, Brian, etc ... VID fixes

Graham
Fixes to prot-http to support put etc.

BrianH

SQL_FLOAT and SQL_REAL are converted the same way, just with different 
sizes. And yet SQL_REAL works and SQL_FLOAT doesn't, at least with 
SQL Native Client (an ODBC 3.5 driver). Perhaps that difference can 
point you in the right direction.

Henrik
view/new make face []
a: open/binary/direct/no-wait tcp://:9000
forever [wait reduce [ a 0.001]]


This produces a 16 byte leak when started. And when I move the window 
and click in it, I get a lot of 64 byte leaks.

Adding SSL to Vid is among the things I'd like to see. Does not need 
to be fast (C-code), but  nowdays many sites don't allow email/ftp:s 
without some kind of TLS or similar.. (Not my specialty, please don't 
ask me to implement) :)

I read also that that Brian's vid resizing scheme works well too 
... does it break any old vid stuff?

Resize doesn't break anything, however it's been re-used in the VID 
extension kit with some modifications, which I don't think are compatible.

Henrik, your VID extension kit is really cool and we'll definitely 
want to look at it for ideas for future VID improvements :)

The main problem is that I will be hard-pressed to understand the 
implications of VID changes in the next 2 days. I don't currently 
understand the DUMP-FACE issue. If you can be sure of it and it can't 
wait a month, it can go in.

2.7.7 release

Call
dockimbel:

About CALL console window issue, the CreateProcess( ) win32 call 
has flags to hide the window. There just need to be set.

In the STARTUPINFO used by CreateProcess( ), just set in dwFlags, 
the STARTF_USESHOWWINDOW flag and set wShowWindow to SW_HIDE.

maybe add a new refinement and let the users decide when they want 
to see the console window ?
or maybe just /show

Paul:
Run is not enabled

Graham

Is anyone concerned that shell windows opened in Encap do not contain 
the correct window title?
Rambo #3660 ( reported march 2005 )

Brian

For me, the big question is what kind of release we will be doing:

- 2.7.7: Patching glaring bugs in a few natives, VID fixes, and continuing 
the backports and mezzanine fixes.

- 2.8.0: Backporting some of the R3 native changes (function, not 
infrastructre), and the above.

I think that the decision a long time ago was to focus on R3 as a 
priority, and just patch up R2 as necessary.

At the very least, I would want a 2.7.7 to have a version that fixes 
post-2.7.6 mezzanine bugs, and 2.7 series regressions vs. 2.6.3.

Henrik
We also need to implement BrianH's new window resize scheme.

Ashley,Anton, Brian, etc ... VID fixes

Graham
Fixes to prot-http to support put etc.

BrianH

SQL_FLOAT and SQL_REAL are converted the same way, just with different 
sizes. And yet SQL_REAL works and SQL_FLOAT doesn't, at least with 
SQL Native Client (an ODBC 3.5 driver). Perhaps that difference can 
point you in the right direction.

Henrik
view/new make face []
a: open/binary/direct/no-wait tcp://:9000
forever [wait reduce [ a 0.001]]


This produces a 16 byte leak when started. And when I move the window 
and click in it, I get a lot of 64 byte leaks.

Proposed 2.7.7 mezz changes have been submitted to DevBase - look 
in R3 chat for details. Haven't gotten to the protocols or VID yet.

Doc in the Core group: "this could be a really great addition to 
R3 (or even R2)"


Policy: Additions of new globally defined functions to new R2 releases 
almost always must get put in R3 first, go through consensus, testing 
and the REBOL optimizer, then be backported to R2 (usually through 
R2/Forward). Enhancements of existing functions in comparable areas 
of the code (not ports, View or library) also go through the R3 gauntlet 
first. If you want R2 /Core enhanced, get to work on R3.


Change to the semantic model of R2 isn't going to happen: No new 
port model, no new View, no extensions or host code - use R3 if you 
need those. New (real) R2 datatypes are unlikely, though faked backports 
of R3 datatypes are OK and have already made it into 2.7.7, with 
more to come. Natives that can be fixed without changing the semantic 
model or adding new datatypes are fair game though.


Bug fixes will be done though as long as code (that we can't fix) 
doesn't depend on the bug (no fix to PICK, POKE and AT's off-by-one 
error, for instance), as will backwards-compatible enhancements to 
R2-specific areas, like the port model, View/VID and library support. 
Backwards-compatible means we also test it against existing code, 
so if you want to test it against your favorite code, please do so 
and tell us what you find.


These fixes are coming, at least in theory - someone has to do the 
work. If you have a favorite bug you need fixed or enhancement you 
need, do the work yourself or pay someone to do the work (REBOL Consulting, 
perhaps). Changes go in as they are made, and they are made by people 
with priorities. If you have priorities too, act on them :)

There's no table in VID

I'm talking about RebGUI, not VID.

A whole bunch of VID documents have been uploaded and updated:

http://www.rebol.com/recent.html

nve - what is Henrik trying to point out imo, is the fact, that it 
is not that easy to change look of R2 VID and stay consistent. I 
think that with VID3 it is going to be easier, as the system is more 
and better abstracted. It might be easier to do the job for R3, than 
to R2. I believe R3 is going into beta sometimes ... when Carl re-appears 
 + 2-3 months :-)

I saw scalling mentioned in some early VID documentation and probably 
some facets were reserved for it, but that's all that has been done 
I think.

I was going to suggest a couple of alternatives but it is hard to 
find something that fits in with the VIEW/VID/GUI metaphors.

Personally, I think that ANCESTORS, PARENT, CHILDREN  and DESCENDANTS 
are very useful words for precisely defining relative positions in 
a heirarchy.


They do not seem to sit well with the REBOL though as firstly they 
are comparative long (and many rebollers appear to worry about having 
to type one or two extra characters) and secondly they don't really 
fit in with the existing VIEW/VID/REBOL3 GUI metaphors (which are 
more facial - FACE, GOB etc.)

complicated: No, it get clearer. The current system is complicated 
if you want to do more than kid things. That was the same problem 
with VID. It was simple for non-value things but not flexible for 
enterprise things.

Well, VID was always declarative, and we know it was/is limited. 
From your proposal it still looks good to me, there just will be 
the need to be able to specify more then one action. I can even imagine:

button "browse" #"B" action [
    on-click [do something]
    on-hover [do something]
]


But for single actions, there would be one unnecessary block level 
probably. I am open to any proposals, and looking forward to final 
solution ....

it won't be necessary with actions (I hope). you simply call actors 
directly. About chaining them, how does it make sense to chain an 
on-click and on-hover actor? They are separate actions. What you 
need is the ability to stack the action code for actors, so that 
if an actor is already defined for a style, then the new action code 
could be appended to the original code. I use a similar design in 
my private version of the VID Extension Kit, but am also forced to 
use the traditional actions as they are part of the standard face.

Robert - interesting. How goes redesign of "vid level" actions/reactions?

noted. perhaps Bolek can answer if this is already possible (I'm 
already doing that in the VID Extension Kit).

ah, so it might be just a separate package,like RebGUI is to VID 
... yes, that's possible too ... we just did not want to have many 
GUIs available. But R3 GUI is in limbo anyway, so ....

CPU are dead in they actual from ... the futur is APU and it would 
be crazy not to adapt VID to feet that new specication especially 
for small devices (smart phones, tablets, notebooks etc ..).being 
AMD being APPLE being Intel or ARM they all look to reduce latency 
in their device by integrating high level GPU into their CPUs.

What I usually use to differentiate these is that there are literal 
values which do not have to be interpreted (only parsed), and logical 
values which have no real meaning without this interpretation.

Serialization

 in the REBOL sense, hence the quotes,  is used to give the second 
 form of data a way to be described in the first, *where its possible* 
  which it isn't at all in the case of some types (native,etc) and 
 only partially in others (objects!, functions!, etc.)   


even with these distinctions there is still a sizeable amount of 
REBOL *data* (interpreter values, not human visible source code) 
which cannot be serialized (in the real sense) in any way because 
either:  

-the notation has simply not been defined for it (cyclic series/objects, 
which is serializable in other languages)

-it implicitely depends on its interpretation (a VID dialect block 
(you cannot save the vid from the faces)), custom types (in the future))

so the way I see it is that: 
-MOLD is the counterpart to DO
-MOLD/ALL is the counterpart to LOAD.

which leads to saying that:

only MOLD/DO can effectively represent all data,  (with the caveat 
that it is extremely insecure)

only MOLD/ALL can effectively represent literal data without interpretation 
(with the caveat that it is not complete)

BOTH , are highly complex to use effectively in non-trivial cases. 
  


IMHO, if it's notation where completed, the second form could actually 
be built to represent all data, since it could be built to include 
binding hints, series reference graphing and more.  It doesn't have 
to be pretty, it just has to be symmetric.

James, I think you are mixing up the word which refers to an object 
with an object value.  this is confusing in Rebol because words are 
not variables.  

it's happened to me a few times (especially in VID) that I mix this 
up in action blocks and VID dialect builders.

I'm not sure adding macros at the "data" level (LOADed source) would 
be really needed. Once Red will be ready, you'll be able to compose 
Red/System dialect source code at Red level (with all the block! 
series power), as you do today in REBOL with VID, DRAW, or other 
dialects.

so red is compiled but then it's systeme dependant and we can't test 
small chunks of code like in R2 consol in my opinion one of the strong 
point of rebol was this ability to open it's consol test an epurated 
bunch of code and then once working enhance it on our script file. 
I would like red somehow to get that  ability maybe it will be possible 
in the IDE or as a side stuff. For me the 2 best points of rebol 
were reflexivity code <--> data code = data data = code and parse. 
Even if I didn't fully understand parse I made a great use in my 
productions in rebol script VID oriented of the reflexivity code 
<---> data. All the other arguments of rebol are not really interresting 
since they are double sided and so not objective and so just a matter 
of mood and point of view.

Impresive Kaj can you do us a set of widgets in SDL or just the smallest 
possible VID and the widgets will be designed later

I really like the  Idea of VID a single face that as all possibilities 
and you just activated /deactivate the parts you want or not this 
is for me the core meaning of VID.

Kaj - as you are so fast in creating bindings, you can port View 
engine as well, so that we coul use VID with RED later :-)

I already told you: we can't use it. Besides, Red won't be compatible 
with REBOL, so it won't be able to run VID. The same goes for the 
View engine: it's very REBOL specific

Newbies info: well, from all the presentations slides, you can see 
that Red is meant to be a "general purpose" programming language, 
so making any list of possible applications would be restrictive 
and probably also premature as Red is not yet implemented.


GUI is certainly a feature to have, but I wouldn't make it part of 
the "core" language, rather handle it as library. One remark about 
future Red GUI support, there will probably be several GUI frameworks 
available (we already have GTK+, I'll add a native one, and someone 
could contribute a View clone), I'll try to put a common VID-like 
dialect on top of them, so we can quickly switch from one to another 
with minimal changes needed.