[REBOL] Re: Send/attach
Thanks Gabriele, Sac We need to be able to do something like: Sac print difference version 1.2.1 version 1.2.10 http://www.rebol.it/~romano/#sect4. Neat! And useful, Sunanda. -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
[REBOL] Re: [encompass.r]
How about encompass stores the old function name and function definition in a list maintained within itself, so you can /restore later. Just an idea. Anton. Hi all, I just wanted to let everyone know of a nifty function I just uploaded to the rebol.r repository, it is called emcompass. I wanted to share it here, but its too large and will wordwrap pretty badly... http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/view-script.r?script=en compass.r There are a lot of comments in the code (per my usual coding style) It lets you add code around a function and wraps all refinements to it. It is a follow up to the question I asked a week ago about transfering all refinements to another function of the same/lesser template. 'ENCOMPASS can be used to modify behaviour of code, without actually tampering with the code itself. It is especially usefull in patching native! funcs. simply put you can: -extend the argument list by adding new parameters or refinements, -add pre-process code, executed before the function you are enclosing. -add pos-tprocess code, executed after the function you are enclosing. -the return value (if any) of the enclosed function can be created/modified in the post-process, which is in turn returned by the encompassing function. the example within the rebol.org encompass.r script show how you can add a confirm on every 'read done, in the case where you want to monitor and intercept what a script is about to read, just before it does. Canceling the read, terminates the script. the example even adds a refinement to read /safe which prevent any confirmation when you know the file is safe. the patch replaces the global read statement, so calling this at the begining of your code actually protects you from someone prying files on your disk and sending them over the net without your knowledge. good thing is that if the template to read changes in the future, you have nothing to edit, it just continues using the new template, because you do not have to tamper with it yourself. The example itself is simple, but it shows just how easy it is to extend/restrict functionality of any function, method, action or native. hope some of you find it usefull, I know I really am! ciao! -MAx PS: if some of you noticed it yesterday, I have severely updated it last night, its worth getting the newer version (1.0.2) - Steel project coordinator http://www.rebol.it/~steel - -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
[REBOL] Re: Problem with Rebol in a LAN
Mauro Fontana wrote: Hi all, I would like to use Rebol in a LAN to write some simple client/server apps but I find it impossible to do any communication with any other computer on the LAN. That is I cannot open any TCP or UDP port on any computer. Actually even a open tcp://myhost:anynumber works. We have a firewall on the LAN that checks for external accesses (that is towards Internet) but I do not think it can influence internal packet transmission. So, can anyone help me sirting this problem out? I hope the given info is enough. MF 1) try setting debugging mode: trace/net: true 2) it surely should work. Do you have rebol NET settings set properly in your user.r? E.g. mine is: set-net [EMAIL PROTECTED] orion.sec.trz.cz orion.sec.trz.cz proxy.sec.trz.cz 3128 generic] Imo - if you can ping other IP and there is no local (personal) firewall software blocking the connection, it has to work :-) -pekr- -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
[REBOL] Re: COLLECTing results
Hi, all
this works also with foreach (not only with loop and repeat):
use [insert-only break-return res] [
insert-only: func [series value] [insert/only series value]
break-return: func [value] [break/return value]
res: func [value] [func [] reduce [value]]
collectB: func [
{Collects block evaluations, use as body in For, Repeat, etc.}
block [block!] Block to evaluate.
/initial result [series!] Initialize the result.
/only Inserts into result using the Only refinement.
][
initial: res reduce [none any [make result result make block! 10]]
reduce [
:loop 1 reduce [
:change :initial reduce [:break-return]
pick reduce [:insert :insert-only] not only
:tail :second :initial :do block
;:do block could be to-paren block, to make it a little more fast
; but so the block is copyed
:change :initial none
]
:do :initial
]
]
]
---
Ciao
Romano
--
To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
[REBOL] Re: [encompass.r]
very good idea! but this would only work for global words. I often use the encompass return function in an object, in order to overide the default function only within the context of an object. thats basically what namespaces (contexts, objects) are for. Anyone... What is the best way for a function to detect if it is part of an object? -MAx --- You can either be part of the problem or part of the solution, but in the end, being part of the problem is much more fun. -Original Message- From: Anton Rolls [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 6:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [REBOL] Re: [encompass.r] How about encompass stores the old function name and function definition in a list maintained within itself, so you can /restore later. Just an idea. Anton. Hi all, I just wanted to let everyone know of a nifty function I just uploaded to the rebol.r repository, it is called emcompass. I wanted to share it here, but its too large and will wordwrap pretty badly... http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/view-script.r?script=en compass.r There are a lot of comments in the code (per my usual coding style) It lets you add code around a function and wraps all refinements to it. It is a follow up to the question I asked a week ago about transfering all refinements to another function of the same/lesser template. 'ENCOMPASS can be used to modify behaviour of code, without actually tampering with the code itself. It is especially usefull in patching native! funcs. simply put you can: -extend the argument list by adding new parameters or refinements, -add pre-process code, executed before the function you are enclosing. -add pos-tprocess code, executed after the function you are enclosing. -the return value (if any) of the enclosed function can be created/modified in the post-process, which is in turn returned by the encompassing function. the example within the rebol.org encompass.r script show how you can add a confirm on every 'read done, in the case where you want to monitor and intercept what a script is about to read, just before it does. Canceling the read, terminates the script. the example even adds a refinement to read /safe which prevent any confirmation when you know the file is safe. the patch replaces the global read statement, so calling this at the begining of your code actually protects you from someone prying files on your disk and sending them over the net without your knowledge. good thing is that if the template to read changes in the future, you have nothing to edit, it just continues using the new template, because you do not have to tamper with it yourself. The example itself is simple, but it shows just how easy it is to extend/restrict functionality of any function, method, action or native. hope some of you find it usefull, I know I really am! ciao! -MAx PS: if some of you noticed it yesterday, I have severely updated it last night, its worth getting the newer version (1.0.2) - Steel project coordinator http://www.rebol.it/~steel - -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject. -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
[REBOL] Re: vim again
ok I checked out vim last week, but I don't get it. why would you want to use vi style of cryptic text editing in the year 2003? is it just out of habit of using vi in the past? maybe its just the version of vim which installed itself, which just looked like a shell with vi loaded... did I miss out on something... there where no menue , no point and click features that I noticed... I work in ultra edit and man, I don't see how I could code faster (within a text editor)! it can even do advanced stuff like replace/all in a collection of files and record macros for that 34 keystroke procedure you have to apply to those 104 items of text ;-)... I'm just curious, really, I'm not saying any vi(m) user is wrong, just that I don't understand. thanks for any replies trying to explain :-) -MAx --- You can either be part of the problem or part of the solution, but in the end, being part of the problem is much more fun. -Original Message- From: Ingo Hohmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 5:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [REBOL] vim again Hi Vimmers out there, I have a beta version of my rebol.vim so far ... goto http://www.h-o-h.org/rebol-vim.tgz (Sorry, not yet linked, and it seems I desperately need to update my page ;-) Kind regards, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject. -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
[REBOL] Re: Send/attach
Hi, View for AIX seems to be at 1.2.1.17. I do not use View on AIX because I want to run REBOL from a shell script. Running Core from a shell script works, but if I try to run View from a shell script it tries to start an X-server, which I don't want. So I have just Core (2.3) on AIX. Of course, IF View 1.2.1.17 has Core 2.5.1 or higher AND it were possible to use View to run a script without trying to open a window, THEN I could get the latest View on AIX and use that, instead of Core only. I have tried that, and it seems not to work. Oh! AIX sems the only Core stopped at 2.3 version! I have not AIX so i can't say, but from what i read, seems that View needs X from startup. This page lists differences in global functions betwween core 2.3.0 and core 2.5.6: http://www.rebol.it/%7Eromano/make_func_diff_2.5.6.3.1-2.3.0.3.1.html i should like to add a 256/250 diff, but i have not that version of Core for Windows. I think that a compatibilty layer for 2.3 can be built copying these functions: 1.1. alter 1.2. attempt 1.3. build-attach-body 1.4. build-markup 1.5. component? 1.7. context 1.10. decode-url 1.11. dispatch 1.12. dump-obj 1.15. extract 1.19. has 1.30. set-user-name 1.32. sign? 1.35. suffix? Obviously, many functions (native or not) can have more refinements, different argument types or bug fixed, but this has not been checked in the above page. For example, i should try to copy the new Help function (and the Send function :-). --- Ciao Romano -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
[REBOL] Re: vim again
Hi Maxim, On Thursday, November 27, 2003, 4:47:23 PM, you wrote: MOA why would you want to use vi style of cryptic text MOA editing in the year 2003? is it just out of habit of using MOA vi in the past? Because it is much better? ;-) Actually, VIM is much, much more than VI. MOA maybe its just the version of vim which installed MOA itself, which just looked like a shell with vi loaded... did MOA I miss out on something... there where no menue , no point MOA and click features that I noticed... GVIM has menus etc., but I almost never use it. With the keyboard it's so much faster... MOA I work in ultra edit and man, I don't see how I could MOA code faster (within a text editor)! If I had to go to something different than VIM, I'd use ION.pe. At least it's fully integrated with REBOL. Regards, Gabriele. -- Gabriele Santilli [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- REBOL Programmer Amiga Group Italia sez. L'Aquila --- SOON: http://www.rebol.it/ -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
[REBOL] Re: [encompass.r]
Max: Anyone... What is the best way for a function to detect if it is part of an object? One way would be to check if 'self is defined. Sunanda. -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
[REBOL] Re: [encompass.r]
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 11:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [REBOL] Re: [encompass.r] Max: Anyone... What is the best way for a function to detect if it is part of an object? One way would be to check if 'self is defined. I though of that, but it is very possible that someone will use self in the global context. even checking if its type is object! isn't completely safe... isn't there a way to probe the current context, one which works whether we are in an object or the global namespace ? I might add a /bind refinement which forces a bind of the created function block to an object. When used, It would implicitly make /revert function differently than when defined 'globally'. As I don't need this functionality right now, I'll put it on the back burner, but if any one DOES need it, I'll raise the priority. I'm pushing slim as the only code I write on right now... so everything else is secondary. I want to start working on STEEL|FORGE SOO badly. I might start working on a QD forge prototype (a closed rebol-coding exclusive toolset with no api) to bootstrap the real application and improve liquid-vid coding speed. cheers! -MAx - Steel project coordinator http://www.rebol.it/~steel - -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
[REBOL] Re: Problem with Rebol in a LAN How do you ping in Rebol?
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:52:09 +0100, Petr Krenzelok [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) try setting debugging mode: trace/net: true 2) it surely should work. Do you have rebol NET settings set properly in your user.r? E.g. mine is: set-net [EMAIL PROTECTED] orion.sec.trz.cz orion.sec.trz.cz proxy.sec.trz.cz 3128 generic] Imo - if you can ping other IP and there is no local (personal) firewall software blocking the connection, it has to work :-) Thanks for the answer. I should have the proper net setup, though I have not set any proxy server. I user trace on but it fleooded the console with too many info to understand something. I use it at work, so I cannot give it too much time. I'll try the trace/net option. BTW, what's the right way to make a ping in Rebol? MF -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
[REBOL] Re: Send/attach
So parts of REBOL are written in...REBOL! Those RT guys are quite the hackers. Eventually RT should mention that more? right, at least part of rebol is improvable source :) -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
[REBOL] [bug?] Problem with 'load
Is this a bug, or am I just being thick? I just want to evaluate a header, but REBOL won't let me even load it if the needs aren't met: load/all/header rebol [needs: [1.2.1 view]] will work if you are running view. But ask for a version you definitely don't have: load/all/header rebol [needs: [1.2.1 ]] ** Script Error: This script needs or better to function correctly ** Near: load/all/header rebol [needs: [1.2.1 ]] Load/all is not meant to evaluate, so I reckon it's a bug. It's certainly a problem. Thanks to Chris RG for spotting this while trying to contribute a script to the Script LibraryWe try to load the header for validation, but we're running Core so the problem was reported as an unable to load error, leading to some mutual head-scratching. Sunanda. -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
[REBOL] Re: [encompass.r]
There is no notion of current context. The same function can be referenced by words in two different objects, can't it? Therefore, which context is current? It's probably infeasible to add a complete undo function, but perhaps an /original refinement might be good so you don't have to remember the original function. It doesn't buy you much, though. Anton. Max: Anyone... What is the best way for a function to detect if it is part of an object? One way would be to check if 'self is defined. I though of that, but it is very possible that someone will use self in the global context. even checking if its type is object! isn't completely safe... isn't there a way to probe the current context, one which works whether we are in an object or the global namespace ? I might add a /bind refinement which forces a bind of the created function block to an object. When used, It would implicitly make /revert function differently than when defined 'globally'. As I don't need this functionality right now, I'll put it on the back burner, but if any one DOES need it, I'll raise the priority. I'm pushing slim as the only code I write on right now... so everything else is secondary. I want to start working on STEEL|FORGE SOO badly. I might start working on a QD forge prototype (a closed rebol-coding exclusive toolset with no api) to bootstrap the real application and improve liquid-vid coding speed. cheers! -MAx -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
