Missing native funcs
[1/7] from: john:schuhr at: 3-Jun-2001 13:22
I have Rebol/Core 2.5.0.3.1 and Rebol/View/Pro 1.2.0.3.1 but there are a
few basic native functions in View that aren't in Core. How does that work?
to-local-file
to-rebol-file
I thought View 1.2 used Core 2.5 ?
--John
[2/7] from: larry:ecotope at: 3-Jun-2001 12:06
Hi John
I think that Core is upgraded with bug fixes and sometimes new features with
each product release. So that the version of Core in View 1.2 is more recent
than Core 2.5 and presumably the Core in Command 2.0 is updated from that in
View 1.2.
Also, sometimes functions that were meant to be in a release are
inadvertently omitted in the build and functions that were not meant to be
in a release are inadvertently included.
Perhaps someone from RT could comment on whether TO-LOCAL-FILE and
TO-REBOL-FILE are intended to be part of future Core releases.
The distinction between native functions (types: op! native! action!) and
mezzanines (type: function!) is not pertinent to the distinction between
Core and View or Command. Both View and Command include native functions not
present in Core (e.g. SHOW and HIDE in View). The View/Pro (and, when
available, Core/Pro) license unlocks additional natives in View or Core.
HTH
-Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schuhr" <[john--schuhr--com]>
To: <[rebol-list--rebol--com]>
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 10:22 AM
Subject: [REBOL] Missing native funcs
I have Rebol/Core 2.5.0.3.1 and Rebol/View/Pro 1.2.0.3.1 but there are a
few basic native functions in View that aren't in Core. How does that work?
to-local-file
to-rebol-file
I thought View 1.2 used Core 2.5 ?
--John
[3/7] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 3-Jun-2001 22:50
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Palmiter" <[larry--ecotope--com]>
To: <[rebol-list--rebol--com]>
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 9:06 PM
Subject: [REBOL] Re: Missing native funcs
> Hi John
>
> I think that Core is upgraded with bug fixes and sometimes new features
with
> each product release. So that the version of Core in View 1.2 is more
recent
> than Core 2.5 and presumably the Core in Command 2.0 is updated from that
in
> View 1.2.
And if that is so it's completly wrong! There should be only one Core
versioned X.Y.Z, always compatible. Typical call for component model :-)
And IF there is new product release, e.g. Command 2.0, together with updated
Core, one of following options should be provided:
1) re-release whole product set (Core, View, Link, Serve, whatever ...)
2) let's go back for "experimentals", allowing to test us new experimental
features, bugfixes, etc., with much frequent releases than we can see for
main product line ...
Cheers,
-pekr-
[4/7] from: carl::rebol::com at: 3-Jun-2001 22:13
Petr,
We put out four new product releases over the last 2 months... that's better
than any previous releases with experimentals.
-Carl
[5/7] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 4-Jun-2001 8:03
Carl Sassenrath wrote:
> Petr,
>
> We put out four new product releases over the last 2 months... that's better
> than any previous releases with experimentals.
Carl, I know ;-) I just meant something different. As to your sentence above -
you took the right direction! I love it. The only one thing which bothers me is
licensing scheme, but I still hope you'll find satisfactory solution. Corporate
money is not problem, I am just scared of hobbyist level.
As for Rebol product releases. As I said - I had something else in my mind. The
problem is, that according to email I was replying to, it seems that once you
release new product, eg. /Command, you put in there the most up-to-date /Core.
And that's what I can see a little bit problematic. Let's say someone writes
script using function XY under new /Command, and it works. Then he/she migrates
his script into most recent /View and ouch, it doesn't work anymore. The person
is, however, using the most up-to-date versions of /Core, /View, /Command,
/Link, whatever. There should not be any difference imo. That's why my opinion
is, that base product (core) should be the same foundation thru all products,
and I offered two possible solutions - one core thru all products + dynamic
component system, or - once you release e.g. /Command containing some /Core
related changes, /View experimentals should be generated too ...
... the whole thing is related to one old thread - bug tracking mechanism,
features planned for upcoming releases, etc etc. What about putting /Express bug
database into some section on View desktop?
I hope you can understand my POV and don't find it offending anymore ... :-)
Friendly,
-pekr-
[6/7] from: holger:rebol at: 12-Jun-2001 8:49
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 12:06:03PM -0700, Larry Palmiter wrote:
> Hi John
>
> I think that Core is upgraded with bug fixes and sometimes new features with
> each product release. So that the version of Core in View 1.2 is more recent
> than Core 2.5 and presumably the Core in Command 2.0 is updated from that in
> View 1.2.
Yes.
> Also, sometimes functions that were meant to be in a release are
> inadvertently omitted in the build and functions that were not meant to be
> in a release are inadvertently included.
Very rarely.
> Perhaps someone from RT could comment on whether TO-LOCAL-FILE and
> TO-REBOL-FILE are intended to be part of future Core releases.
Yes.
--
Holger Kruse
[holger--rebol--com]
[7/7] from: jean:holzammer:faedv-n:bayern at: 13-Jun-2001 7:38
> > Perhaps someone from RT could comment on whether TO-LOCAL-FILE and
> > TO-REBOL-FILE are intended to be part of future Core releases.
I didn't know that these functions exist at all. Good they are mentioned
here; help says they are undocumented.
Quite useful, especially with browse.
Jean