| # | User | Message | Date |
| 940 | BrianH | The DLL.SO group covers R2's DLL interface, the Extensions group covers R3's. | 29-Dec-09 19:27 |
| 939 | Sunanda | Does the [DLO.SO] group cover it, or is that too platform specific? | 29-Dec-09 17:19 |
| 938 | Janko | hm.. what is the channel to ask about making native libraries? I remember there was one | 29-Dec-09 17:14 |
| 937 | Janko | aha, then I am actually not going crazy :)))) | 29-Dec-09 17:11 |
| 936 | Sunanda | I just updated the group name from [Library] to [Script Library] to make its primary purpose clearer. | 29-Dec-09 17:03 |
| 935 | Janko | (at first I thought that someone changed the name of the group just now :)) but now I think that probably I just missed channel | 29-Dec-09 17:02 |
| 934 | Janko | I don't know .. I still remember seeing just Library :) | 29-Dec-09 17:02 |
| 933 | Sunanda | It's an easy mistake to make :) | 29-Dec-09 17:00 |
| 932 | Janko | ups.. I thought this channel is Library .. about native libraries :/ | 29-Dec-09 16:59 |
| 931 | Janko | Basically I am writing to ask something ... I am newbie at writing rebol bindings. This binding if it works it works but if almost anything goes wrong it simply crashes. For example missing some file, not going into TEXT mode , not oppening closing something, page reference insted of pdf doc reference given to some function in binding .. pdf that we intend to write being locked (alredy open in acrobat)... ETC ... I intend to write this robust now, so I am asking how is this usually done? I can check for preconditions before talking to binding at runtime in rebol. Another (better) option is that binding shouldn't just crash for anything that goes wrong. I saw in docs something about error messages as return, so maybe I am doing something wrong in the first place , for example not implementing or setting up some callback for errors... Anyone more experienced than me? Rebol Haru could be quite capable otherwise, it supports all things that are really messy to do in PDF (encodings, embedding fonts, images, encryption, graphics, ...). One thing is that I can check for these preconditions at runtime, | 29-Dec-09 16:39 |
| 930 | Janko | I am enhancing the rebol Haru PDF binding again , in the meantime I added support for getting position of current "text cursor" (which was the problem back then).. I needed it to detect when to go to new-page with pdf. Now I also added support for images (jpg and png). I am using Git so code is here: http://github.com/jankom/RebHaruPDF .. it's still heavy in progress and there is a nicer OO interface than the one in sample_images.r (that is using the lowest level direct functions from binding because I am testing if it works at all with it) | 29-Dec-09 16:30 |
| 929 | Sunanda | If you add a new script, yoy can add a (say)
library: [r3: 'tested]
tag, and that will be picked up and used in the tag index. The problem with updating the tags in the headers of existing scripts is that it is long-winded: you need to physically upload a new version. Better just to retag via the [edit tags] link. | 13-Dec-09 18:48 |
| 928 | Chris | Exactly. | 13-Dec-09 18:48 |
| 927 | Maxim | maybe a simple part of header processing could be that when needs r3 is there... it is tagged as such automatically. | 13-Dec-09 18:48 |
| 926 | Maxim | some of the library headers create tags IIRC. :-) | 13-Dec-09 18:47 |
| 925 | Chris | Or 'find the most elegant way to' : ) | 13-Dec-09 18:46 |
| 924 | Chris | It'd be more elegant to find the best way to add it to metadata, like just adding 'r3 to the tested under dialect in the library header. | 13-Dec-09 18:45 |
| 923 | Sunanda | It'd make some sense to add an [R2] tag to all existing scripts (we can do that automatically) and/or [R3//untested] tag.
But let's get some [R3] scripts first, so we have a_need_ to make the distinction. A couple of my scripts should be tagged as [R3] -- I just never got a round tuit: http://www.rebol.org/art-display-article.r?article=j26z | 13-Dec-09 18:45 |
| 922 | Maxim | what do you mean? | 13-Dec-09 18:33 |
| 921 | Chris | But not in a way that looks weird when R2 and R3 roles are flipped. | 13-Dec-09 18:32 |
| 920 | Maxim | its time to show the world that R3 is starting to be usefull, stable and now finally actually better than r2 in few ways. Its gotten past the fun "prototype" stage and is now at the usefull "it works" stage, even if still alpha/beta | 13-Dec-09 18:32 |
| 919 | Maxim | exactly... but just adding that button in the menu (even if there are only on or two script which are tagged atm) will help raise awareness about the need to tag stuff and to add new r3 content to rebol.org. that's just my two cents... right now... rebol.org fives the impression it doesn't support r3 at all. maybe a little post on rebol weekly to promote the use of r3 tags and a quiet request to carl to blog about it on the r3 blog, where MANY people go for r3 news. | 13-Dec-09 18:30 |
| 918 | Sunanda | No many tagged yet :) http://www.rebol.org/st-topic-index.r?i=r3 | 13-Dec-09 18:27 |
| 917 | Maxim | chris: some scripts might need 2 but still be compatible with r3... right now there is no way to know what (still) works in R3 | 13-Dec-09 18:25 |
| 916 | Sunanda | Chris -- that will ensure people have to use thr right .EXE to run it.....But not help them select which of the 900+ scripts are R3 ready already. | 13-Dec-09 18:25 |
| 915 | Chris | Seems version-specific tags become obsolete over time.. | 13-Dec-09 18:24 |
| 914 | Sunanda | Once we have a few with an R3 tag, it'll make sense to add R3 as a menu entry. | 13-Dec-09 18:24 |
| 913 | Chris | Is it not sufficient to set a minimum 'needs header? | 13-Dec-09 18:24 |
| 912 | Sunanda | Sounds good -- go for it!! | 13-Dec-09 18:24 |
| 911 | Maxim | so possibly the best would be to make it a standard like: r3//only r3//compatible r3//incompatible | 13-Dec-09 18:22 |
| 910 | Maxim | there is a tagged called r3-ready, but that doesn't rule out its a r3 only script. | 13-Dec-09 18:21 |
| 909 | Maxim | ok, so my guess is to add r3 as a library *interface* supported tag in the left columns. | 13-Dec-09 18:20 |
| 908 | Sunanda | Anyone can add any tag to scripts....Click the [edit tags] link when logged on and looking at a script. http://www.rebol.org/boiler.r?display=st-edit-tags-help | 13-Dec-09 18:16 |
| 907 | Reichart | Agreed. | 13-Dec-09 17:33 |
| 906 | Maxim | rebol.org should have a new tag added: R3 since R3 just about every R3 scripts are incompatible with R2 it would be nice to have reference to what R3 scripts are available on rebol.org. I ask this cause I want to upload an R3 BNF -> Parse grammer converter and I see no way to make it explicit in the gui that its an R3 script. | 13-Dec-09 16:44 |
| 905 | AdrianS | looks good - it might be useful to impose the actual dimensions of the three sizes for consistency. I suppose the submitted images could be scaled after uploading, but it might help the uploader to know the sizes so that he could take them into account and maybe crop the images, if needed. | 26-Sep-09 4:08 |
| 904 | amacleod | very nice touch | 25-Sep-09 20:04 |
| 903 | Sunanda | Something new in the Library....If you own scripts, you can add images to them to make it all a bit more graphic. Only example to date here: http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=ascii-chart.r Notes about how to add images to yoour scripts here: http://www.rebol.org/boiler.r?display=script-images Thanks to Maxim for the original change request. | 25-Sep-09 16:19 |
| 902 | Sunanda | The strategy is: -- allow scripts to be tagged as (say) r3-ready,. r3-only, r2-only -- allow searches to be limited to specific tags -- perhaps highligh in searh results the R2/R3 status. The first two steps are already in place. | 26-Aug-09 17:34 |
| 901 | Pekr | Guys, is there any strategy of how to distinguish R2 vs R3 script base? I know that there are header/library fields available, but apart from that, I expect almost zero compatibility between R2 and R3 script base, and users might be confused, why scripts don't work for them? Would R2 vs R3 script-base split be a good idea? | 26-Aug-09 16:41 |
| 900 | Sunanda | It's possible....But may take a while. For now, you could publish extension code on REBOL.org as an article (or series of articles). | 26-Aug-09 15:25 |
| 899 | Maxim | sunanda, you might want to add an "extension" section to rebol.org where we may contribute C/C++ code to rebol.org... what do you think? for tutorials and small projects it might be very usefull as a tool to help out other people into understanding how to use the extension API. | 26-Aug-09 12:39 |
| 898 | Graham | In that case, fnished so soon?? | 26-Aug-09 8:43 |
| 897 | Maxim | I'm almost done doing my lean rebol to JSON converter... and its been tested using an html and javascript test, so its output is valid. | 26-Aug-09 8:42 |
| 896 | Graham | Max, given up already on the json library?? :) | 26-Aug-09 8:42 |
| 895 | Maxim | ok , I'll give it a try for fun... :-) | 26-Aug-09 8:41 |
| 894 | Maxim | divs really cause sooooo much browser display issues.... tables usually are easier to manage. | 26-Aug-09 8:40 |
| 893 | Sunanda | Good news -- no absolutely positiioned DIVs, so it is a fairly fluid layout, will flow easily into most window size. Bad news -- main frame of site is a table. Originally, it was nested DIVs but that caused some layout problems when displaying <pre> sections of code. Going to a table was a quick fix that has never been looked at again. | 26-Aug-09 8:30 |
| 892 | Maxim | is the site built using only nested table elements? | 26-Aug-09 8:28 |
| 891 | Gregg | They are very rare. | 21-Aug-09 14:17 |
| 890 | Geomol | Not refinements, get-word arguments. | 21-Aug-09 12:25 |
| 889 | Geomol | It doesn't seem, functions with get-word refinements are used very much. | 21-Aug-09 12:24 |
| 888 | Geomol | Thanks! | 21-Aug-09 11:26 |
| 887 | Sunanda | Sorry, no there is not -- not online anyway. You could download all the scripts and do a search locally with a few lines of REBOL code http://localhost/cgi-bin/download-librarian.r (the scripts will all be in the /scripts/ folder) | 21-Aug-09 11:22 |
| 886 | Geomol | Is it possible to search the library for something like: "func [:" I only need results, where the string "func [:" is included. | 21-Aug-09 11:06 |
| 885 | Barik | Okay, I'll give it a shot there, thanks. | 6-Aug-09 18:25 |
| 884 | Sunanda | BrianH suggests DLL.SO | 6-Aug-09 18:24 |
| 883 | Barik | Core? | 6-Aug-09 18:21 |
| 882 | Barik | What's the appropriate group to ask my question do you think | 6-Aug-09 18:21 |
| 881 | Sunanda | No problem.....The flaw is really in AltME: we should be able to move posts around to the right group. | 6-Aug-09 18:21 |
| 880 | Barik | Hmm, I just realized library group was for the script library, not for library/load and DLL related questions. Oops. | 6-Aug-09 18:18 |
| 879 | Barik | Hi all. I've got an issue in REBOL2. I have a Win32 DLL (using library/load) that has an argument of char**. What does my make routine! need to look like to be able to handle this? | 6-Aug-09 18:16 |
| 878 | Graham | well, I guess the obfuscation is fair enough since it's a user/password combination | 22-Jul-09 9:58 |
| 877 | Graham | or not .. | 22-Jul-09 9:53 |
| 876 | Graham | Looking at that script, I suspect you can change the definition for user so that it excludes // | 22-Jul-09 9:52 |
| 875 | Sunanda | The email obsfucation is based on Andrew's code. Improvements are welcome!
http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=uri.r Meanwhile, we do not obsfucate if you are logged on. So log on for a better browsing experience. | 22-Jul-09 9:40 |
| 874 | Sunanda | Thanks Graham. Paging for AltME archive.....We only put the basics in place. It is certainly improvable. Meanwhile, you can make great leaps if you are happy to edit the end of the URL .... ... eg 16273 is the post number for group 453 of world R3WP. Change the 16273 to move quickly: http://www.rebol.org/aga-display-posts.r?post=r3wp453x16273 | 22-Jul-09 9:38 |
| 873 | Graham | Also, can we have a smarter parser for obfuscating email addresses: bugs mysql://[root-:-localhost]/bugs1 | 22-Jul-09 7:00 |
| 872 | Graham | Perhaps index by month?? | 22-Jul-09 6:16 |
| 871 | Graham | Is there a way to provide page numbers into the altme messages? It's only got newer and older to allow pagination. | 22-Jul-09 6:16 |
| 870 | Sunanda | Maxim -- 404s should be fixed now. Sorry again for the problem. Gabriele -- the ISP explains it as some stray redirect for the duplicate folders we had during the migration. I am not sure I follow their explanation, but they say they've fixed it. | 12-Jul-09 16:02 |
| 869 | Sunanda | Thanks Gabriele. That's probably what happened. The real mystery though is why our upload process gets it wrong with the new server. | 11-Jul-09 14:46 |
| 868 | Gabriele | Sunanda, what usually creates problems is the shebang line ending. If it's CRLF, the CR becomes part of the command line. | 11-Jul-09 8:50 |
| 867 | Sunanda | Got it -- what I'd uploaded (using our time-tested uploader) somehow had the wrong sort of line endings, and Apache got very unhappy.
My immediate attempted repair (hand upload via FTP) also had the same issue.
I have no idea why the line endings are suddenly acceptable. The ISP saved the day by restoring the cgi-bin from the previous night's backup. | 10-Jul-09 17:28 |
| 866 | Sunanda | Thanks, So did I -- I uploaded one changed cgi script as part of the sea trials for the new site. And suddenly it all went dark. Back now.....Not sure what happened, yet. | 10-Jul-09 17:19 |
| 865 | Graham | I get an internal server error at www.rebol.org | 10-Jul-09 11:09 |
| 864 | Sunanda | Thanks -- looks like our .htaccess is being ignored by the new version of Apache. I suppose I could mess around trying stuff in .htconfig to work around it. Instead, I've asked the ISP why .htaccess is not enabled. I'll ley you know when they respond. | 10-Jul-09 8:01 |
| 863 | Maxim | glad to help. :-) | 10-Jul-09 7:45 |
| 862 | Sunanda | Thanks -- I see that too......We need a tweak on the URL rewriting. | 10-Jul-09 7:45 |
| 861 | Maxim | here is an error I got trying to go to the http-tools.r script... Not Found The requested URL /cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/view-script.r was not found on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. Apache Server at www.rebol.org Port 80 | 10-Jul-09 7:41 |
| 860 | Sunanda | Google changes -- do you mean the whol /cgiwrap/ stuff in the middle of a URL? | 10-Jul-09 7:38 |
| 859 | Sunanda | I just tried a script download under Windows: -- when I selected "save to disk" it was saved as a *.r file as I';d expect -- when I selected "open with notepad" it got named *.r.txt" | 10-Jul-09 7:38 |
| 858 | Maxim | also, some scripts indexed on google do not have the same url now... no example, but just tought I'd point this out... its possible the url has changed slightly. | 10-Jul-09 7:36 |
| 857 | Sunanda | Thanks ... I'll add that to my list of migration quirks. We have several now :) | 10-Jul-09 7:35 |
| 856 | Maxim | just noticed that downloading scripts seems to add a .txt extension after the .r so you get script.r.txt | 10-Jul-09 7:14 |
| 855 | Sunanda | REBOL.org just migrated from the world's slowest single server to a small load balanced cluster.
Sadly, we're not superfast, but its early days yet. One cosmetic problem: we're showing the date as 6 hours out. Highly trained techies are working to resolve that. Other than that, it was a smooth move, mainly handled by the ISP. | 9-Jul-09 22:19 |
| 854 | btiffin | Yayyy! The 2008 rebol Of The Year posts the 900th script. And great big round of Yayyyy! | 1-Jul-09 16:08 |
| 853 | Sunanda | Ashley's in, and adding scripts! http://www.rebol.org/cpt-list-scripts.r?user-name=ashley | 28-Jun-09 21:52 |
| 852 | Ashley | I think that last one was the reason. | 28-Jun-09 1:06 |
| 851 | PeterWood | I checked the user list and "Ashley" isn't displayed. This could be or one of three reasons:
1. You requested privacy when you first joined.
2. You used another name.
3. You membership expired If I remember correctly memberships can expire if you haven't added a script to the library and haven't logged in to the site in the last six months. | 27-Jun-09 23:32 |
| 850 | PeterWood | Ashley: Are you still having problems logging on? I can log on. | 27-Jun-09 23:27 |
| 849 | Anton | (Oh - I re-read what you wrote above: your disk quote was exceeded by the backup.) | 27-Jun-09 16:19 |
| 848 | Anton | Sunanda, any idea what the ultimate cause for those corrupted file writes was? | 27-Jun-09 16:18 |
| 847 | Ashley | Just tried logging on without success ... is this due to the above problems or do I require a password reset? (I've got a couple of useful scripts I finaly want to upload). | 27-Jun-09 13:34 |
| 846 | Graham | IOS used to do that ... | 26-Jun-09 11:15 |
| 845 | Janko | huh.. writes failing by zeroing files is a thing that can cause quite few problems .. haven't been aware of that | 26-Jun-09 9:04 |
| 844 | Sunanda | We lost no data. But we lost the site for a little while.....Little things like this built up: -- you try to login -- we update your last-active time -- but that file write completely trashed your user-profile record Or: -- we upload some more posts from this AltME world -- as we write them into our index data structures, it corrupts the index, thus making the whole AltME archive unavailable. Corrupt-on-write is a hard mode to recover from :-) | 26-Jun-09 7:35 |
| 843 | Janko | uh? .. so you lost all data or a part of it or none? | 26-Jun-09 7:30 |
| 842 | Sunanda | REBOL.org died last night because:
-- the ISP copied the entire site in preparation for a server migration
-- that doubled our disk usage ..... and took us over our disk space quota
-- so all file writes failed
-- but they failed by writing zero byte length files. result data loss and corruption of indexes
We are now restored and back up and running. The server migration is still to come. As Carl says, it may break things in other ways. | 26-Jun-09 7:26 |
| 841 | Sunanda | As Carl mentioned in Announcemements:
www.rebol.org is being moved by the ISP to a faster server. I'm not sure they understand what's really involved, so it is very likely that the site is going to break. I'm just going to set the site to read-only, as I am not sure they will be able to backup and copy everything while we are adding ML posts, scripts etc. I hope normal service wiill be resumed asap! | 25-Jun-09 21:44 |
| 840 | Sunanda | I'd noticed that change -- it's a good one, thanks. | 24-Jun-09 17:22 |
| 839 | BrianH | The explicit named Needs loads modules rather than checks components, but the straight version Needs works the same. | 24-Jun-09 17:22 |
| 838 | BrianH | The Needs header works in R3, and is only checked on DO, not LOAD. | 24-Jun-09 17:20 |
| 837 | Sunanda | Just replied to a Feedback message sent to REBOL.org about the Script Library:
> When will the current script library "die"?
[The questioner suggests that R3 incompatibilities may mean we simply purge all R2 scripts to create an R3-only Library] My response...... Thanks for the question. The simple answer is: I hope never. *** Coincidentally, I have just started an exercise in seeing how many of my contributions to the Script Library will port with few or no changes. The results are encouraging so far: http://www.rebol.org/art-display-article.r?article=j26z I know some of my scripts will be obsoleted by R3. They can stay in the Library as R2-only resources. I am hoping many of the rest will be code compatible between R2 and R3, so they will work either way. *** Ladislav has also commented on his early porting experience: http://www.rebol.org/art-display-article.r?article=w24v There is some discussion of the issue on the REBOL3 AltME world: http://www.rebol.org/aga-display-posts.r?post=r3wp453x15753 *** The Library has a flexible tagging method for scripts, see: http://www.rebol.org/st-topic-index.r We can very easily add tags for (say) R3-ready R2-only Or whatever seems the best set to help partition the scripts into R2, R3, or both. Hope that helps a little! | 24-Jun-09 16:48 |
| 836 | Maxim | cool | 29-Apr-09 14:34 |
| 835 | Sunanda | Thanks Maxim, that's helpful.......Not sure when I can start twiddling with something like that, but it's on my list. | 29-Apr-09 7:02 |
| 834 | Maxim | I meant to say "merge of" | 29-Apr-09 0:02 |
| 833 | Maxim | strinct = collation of stringent and strict ;-D | 29-Apr-09 0:02 |
| 832 | Maxim | yes, in the script description above the start of the script, under the : [View in color] [View discussion [1 post]] [License] [Download script] [History] [Other scripts by: moliad] menu... just a list of uploaded images with a one line caption when you click on it, showing the full image. obviously, you should impose strinct size limits, enforcing proper compression. and potentially a maximum size. | 29-Apr-09 0:01 |
| 831 | Maxim | sorry, misread the post... you where asking for comments... not saying you did it hehehe. | 28-Apr-09 23:59 |
| 830 | Maxim | sunanda, sorry I missed the post where you added image support! wow. will check it out immediately. | 28-Apr-09 23:56 |
| 829 | Sunanda | Cut'n'paste ought to work. Though the download format is safer as it has been less processed (no escaping of embedded HTML codes etc). I can sympathise -- I generally notice _any_ new device I buy (from computers to wrist watches) won't work for the first half hour or so, But as soon as I start to think that either it's defective, or I am very stupid, then it starts to play fair. Animism is still a good first attempt at understanding the universe :-) | 15-Apr-09 16:22 |
| 828 | mhinson | Thanks for your attenton to my questions.
It seems I stumbled across the need for support of comments in ini files. I was also trying to cut & paste from the viewing version of some scripts, rather than the download version as I did not realise there was a destinction. It is also possiable that my cut & pastes were not complete perhaps, as the scripts that would not run like that before seem to work ok now. I notice that a lot of things show anomolous behaviour when used by inexperienced users who lack confidence. It is like they know who they can play tricks on, & who won't stand for it. | 15-Apr-09 14:28 |
| 827 | Sunanda | Thanks, sqlab......That works fine. (I should read the documentation in future before writing the script :) I've updated the script in the Library: http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=parse-ini.r | 15-Apr-09 8:23 |
| 826 | sqlab | Mike I checked your library example from the I'm new group producing errors. There is probably a weakness, as the script does not regard comment lines. A short enhancement would be parse-ini-file: func [ file-name [file!] /local ini-block current-section parsed-line section-name ][ ini-block: copy [] current-section: copy [] foreach ini-line read/lines file-name [ if #";" <> first ini-line [ ; do not process comment lines section-name: ini-line error? try [section-name: first load/all ini-line] either any [ error? try [block? section-name] not block? section-name ][ parsed-line: parse/all ini-line "=" append last current-section parsed-line/1 append last current-section parsed-line/2 ][ append ini-block current-section current-section: copy [] append current-section form section-name append/only current-section copy [] ] ;; either ] ] ;; for append ini-block current-section return to-hash ini-block ] | 14-Apr-09 12:00 |
| 825 | sqlab | There are two file versions in the library, one for viewing, one for downloading. Did you use the one from http://www.rebol.org/download-a-script.r?script-name=....r Maybe the other ones have problems. | 14-Apr-09 11:39 |
| 824 | Pekr | give me an example of such script. The thing might be, that some scripts are already dated, but most of them should work ... | 14-Apr-09 11:02 |
| 823 | mhinson | Hi, I am very new to Rebol so appologies if my questions are very simple. I have been trying to use functions & examples from the library by pasting them into the REBOL/View console. When I do this I find most of them produce errors or lock up the console so I have to restart it. What am I doing wrong please? Is there some trick to this that is so obvious that no one has mentioned it? Thanks, | 14-Apr-09 10:41 |
| 822 | Sunanda | ....Maybe a better slot for a thumbnail would be in the LHS menu, just under the <Script Library Home> link. That would keep it out of the flow of the page. Please suggest better ideas :-) | 26-Mar-09 19:12 |
| 821 | Sunanda | That's a nice idea, though there are some technical CSS issues......For example, the actual script is displayed in a <pre> block. That means images may not float where you'd expect them. It'll take some experimentation to find the best way to do it. | 26-Mar-09 19:10 |
| 820 | Sunanda | Max, I assumed you meant have the pic on the main page for the script, eg for liquid.r you'd see a thumbnail here: http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=liquid.r | 26-Mar-09 19:09 |
| 819 | Maxim | you mean add the pictures at the header of docs? or allow us to use the pics within the docs? | 26-Mar-09 18:59 |
| 818 | Alan | re:pictures. Some but not all scripts also have docs, so that might be a good place to add them.For those that don't,a clickable small thumbnail? | 22-Mar-09 7:28 |
| 817 | Maxim | cool, let me know if you want to test it, I'll be happy to supply imgs for my scripts. | 20-Mar-09 16:00 |
| 816 | Sunanda | Nice idea, thanks ..... Let me think about it. | 20-Mar-09 9:21 |
| 815 | Maxim | maybe, we could eventually have more than one picture, like pics which are specifically tagged as gui screenshots, for example. | 20-Mar-09 4:05 |
| 814 | Maxim | sunanda: I have a feature proposal for you :-) it would be nice to be able to supply a single picture to link with the scripts. this image (jpg, png, gif) would have hefty size limitation and I think only one image per script should be enough, but having this alongside the various listings of the application and within searches, new scripts, etc would be really cool. sometimes, if you see a thumbnail (ui grab, console example, logo, output gfx, whatever), it will help raise people's curiosity. this could probably benefit quite a few scripts, which are possibly overlooked. having a simple search filter of scripts with pics, could also help people to quickly find usefull things at a glance. what do you think? it could start out really simple, and slowly thumbnails could creep into various listings of scripts. | 20-Mar-09 4:03 |
| 813 | Anton | I'm interested in the utf-8 detection function. Can it be published? | 19-Mar-09 4:36 |
| 812 | Anton | Sundanda, good job, I was hoping you'd do that, and you did. | 19-Mar-09 4:33 |
| 811 | Sunanda | Using Peter's code (thanks again!), I've made two changes to the download-a-script link: 1. if we find UTF-8 chars in a script, we download it with the HTTP content type charset=utf-8 But that probably makes no practical difference. A downloaded script will be saved by the browser, and then opened by a text editor. The text editor is unlikey to be passed the charset setting. So: 2. Scripts with UTF-8 encoding are downloaded with a few lines of comment at their top. The comment explains the possible problem. Thanks to all for the comments and help with getting things this far. | 18-Mar-09 16:55 |
| 810 | Anton | I understand what you mean, and obviously the definition of "legacy" is a bit fuzzy. | 18-Mar-09 9:35 |
| 809 | Anton | Yes, I do. | 18-Mar-09 9:33 |
| 808 | PeterWood | It's not just legacy client apps unless you consider all Rebol/View scripts as legacy apps. | 18-Mar-09 8:37 |
| 807 | Anton | Ok, so things seem to be proceeding well. The rebol.org Library's support for utf-8 was actually stronger than thought, and what're being added are functions to help deal with legacy client apps which misidentify the file encoding. | 18-Mar-09 8:17 |
| 806 | Sunanda | Thanks. | 18-Mar-09 7:51 |
| 805 | PeterWood | It's about 65 lines so rather than post it here I will email you a copy. | 17-Mar-09 23:25 |
| 804 | PeterWood | I have a function which finds utf-8 multi byte character sequences in a string. Given the code ranges for mulit-byte characters, it would be rare to find such a sequence accidentally. | 17-Mar-09 23:24 |
| 803 | Sunanda | Thanks everyone.
I think our first step is to add a warning to any download for scripts that contain UTF-8 chars. So, for that I need a function: utf-8?: func [data [string!] [ ...] ; returns true or false [and perhaps "not sure" in ambiguous cases] I've done the easy part :-) Can anyone help with the difficult "..." part ? It is not as simple as just looking for ASCII > 128 .... some high ASCII is acceptable as part of, say, ISO 8859-1 | 17-Mar-09 19:14 |
| 802 | Anton | swall, yes, strange, I can't remember configuring vim for utf-8 (I don't use it regularly), but it displayed correctly straight away for me. Must be some dark config option or something... | 17-Mar-09 14:50 |
| 801 | Anton | Yes, use of BOM has its own troubles. I don't think it's a good idea. | 17-Mar-09 14:48 |
| 800 | swall | Gabriele: Where is the host code page set? On Windows, is it set differently for View and Core? Is that why the downloaded script works as expected in View but not in Core? | 17-Mar-09 13:48 |
| 799 | swall | Anton: you're right Vim does display the file correctly, although not by default. I guess it helps when you read the manual. :-) | 17-Mar-09 12:52 |
| 798 | Chris | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte_Order_Mark#cite_note-0 | 17-Mar-09 12:48 |
| 797 | Gabriele | All these troubles go away with R3... but I think it would be nice if R2 recognized UTF-8 and converted it on the fly; we could add a BOM at the beginning to make that easier. | 17-Mar-09 9:47 |
| 796 | Gabriele | Sunanda: given that R2 uses the host current code page, I think the best way would be for the user to convert the script after downloading it. On Linux or Mac for eg, UTF-8 is perfect for Core scripts as the terminal is UTF-8. On Windows or for View scripts, you'll get the host code page displayed anyway, so the user has to do the conversion. A tool to do that automatically would be nice (I have the code, it will be released soon, but you may need to wait a couple weeks more). | 17-Mar-09 9:46 |
| 795 | Anton | Ok, so there are some editors which don't support unicode, don't guess encoding correctly, or can change encoding only with difficulty. How about this suggestion; if a rebol.org script is known to be UTF-8, then an additional link should appear: [Download as ASCII] download-a-script?script-name=ascii-math.r&encoded-as=8-bit-ascii which transcodes a UTF-8 file to ASCII. Just have to get a conversion function in place for this to work. | 17-Mar-09 5:35 |
| 794 | Anton | Vim supports unicode and on my system shows the characters correctly. | 17-Mar-09 5:19 |
| 793 | Sunanda | Of the various editors / word processors I have immediately to hand: -- credit.exe -- [my usual editor] shows incorrect chars, and has no option to switch to UTF-8 -- open office writer -- works fine if you take the UTF-8 option when asked -- ms word -- claims file is corrupt -- word perfect -- makes a complete mess -- R2/View's built in editor ( editor %/c/path to my local copy//ascii-math.r) -- shows incorrect chars | 16-Mar-09 16:44 |
| 792 | swall | Vim and Editor² display the chars incorrectly. Notepad++ shows the chars correctly. | 16-Mar-09 16:22 |
| 791 | Sunanda | Thanks guys.
Other scripts with the same problem.....there are a couple.
About 10% of all scripts have at least one extended ASCII char....But most of them are acceptable in LATIN-1 code page / charset (eg copyright symbol, some accented letters). It's just a very few scripts that use 1/4 and similar symbols that cause the problem. What other editors? Windows NOTEPAD is one example of a common one that gets this wrong. | 16-Mar-09 16:17 |
| 790 | swall | If the offending downloaded script is executed in Rebol/Core, the extra ASCII chars are also present in the executed code. The script defines ½ to be 0.5. If "help ½" is typed into the console, the result is "Found these words: ½ decimal! 0.5". However, if the script is executed in Rebol/View, the result is "½ is a decimal of value: 0.5". It seems that View handles it correctly, while Core doesn't. | 16-Mar-09 15:25 |
| 789 | Anton | Are rebol.org uploaders asked to declare the encoding used? | 16-Mar-09 15:02 |
| 788 | Anton | It seems the responsibility lies with the clients to interpret encodings properly. As we move to a unicode world, software assuming 8-bit encodings are some ASCII encoding should drop off. But until the transition is complete, there's not much we can do about client software guessing wrong like that, except stating the encoding in the script header, in the web page that provides the download link, and by helping confused newbies. | 16-Mar-09 15:00 |
| 787 | Anton | Which editors? I think most editors these days allow manually changing the encoding, so developers who notice strange characters can just change it themselves. Maybe it would be helpful to add a rebol.org library script header advertising the encoding (when it is known, and when not). I don't recommend 'de-UTF-8'ing files on download - that's just going to confuse things more, especially when the file is view-script.r'd as utf-8 just beforehand. | 16-Mar-09 14:47 |
| 786 | Sunanda | Anton -- not yet run a crawl to check for other scripts with high ascii chars. | 16-Mar-09 11:17 |
| 785 | Sunanda | Thanks Gabriele -- that's a clear explanation, and has helped me work out what is going on. Anton and Gabriele -- I have tried changing the charset we emit on the download to say UTF-8. But that makes little difference. As both of you note, once the file has been saved then (without a MAC-type resource fork) there is no obvious indication of the encoding. And several editors I have tried get it wrong -- thus "revealing" the extra ASCII chars. Not sure what the solution is other than to de-UTF-8 files on download. | 16-Mar-09 11:16 |
| 784 | Anton | Any other scripts you can find showing problems ? | 15-Mar-09 15:05 |
| 783 | Anton | R3 console seems to handle it better. | 15-Mar-09 15:02 |
| 782 | Anton | Except for R2 console, of course. | 15-Mar-09 14:58 |
| 781 | Anton | So I'm pretty happy with the way that script was handled by the software here. | 15-Mar-09 14:52 |
| 780 | Anton | The view-script.r html source for the page correctly advertises the encoding as utf-8, so the browser shows it correctly. | 15-Mar-09 14:50 |
| 779 | Anton | Sunanda, you're right about that ascii-math.r file. When I clicked the [Download script] link, the browser (konqueror) downloaded and directly opened it with the editor (SciTE). SciTE thought it was 8-bit ascii, and showed the characters incorrectly. All I had to do was change the file encoding from 8-bit to utf-8 and the characters appeared correctly. I guess the editor had no way of determining the encoding, and incorrectly guessed 8-bit ascii. | 15-Mar-09 14:46 |
| 778 | Gabriele | Sunanda, I can tell you where does chars come from. if your page is set as utf-8, then the script as been uploaded by the browser as utf-8. when you view it in the brower, it shows correctly as utf-8. when you download it, it is still utf-8, but if you view it with something that believes it's latin1 (eg. the rebol 2 console on windows set as latin1), it won't show up correctly. | 15-Mar-09 11:00 |
| 777 | Sunanda | No actual stats. Just from feel: * Scripts -- very few * Posts on the ML -- a few dozen * AltME archive -- no idea | 15-Mar-09 0:46 |
| 776 | Chris | Re. ISO-8859-1 - the most obvious problem is the limitation - 256 chars vs. UCS-1+ | 14-Mar-09 23:04 |
| 775 | Chris | Or scope? - minimal; limited; too many to be trivial... | 14-Mar-09 23:01 |
| 774 | Chris | Do you have any stats on how many 'high bit' characters are now contained in Library content? | 14-Mar-09 23:00 |
| 773 | PeterWood | I think the root of the problem is that when the Library system was first written, no account was taken of character encoding. As a result, not only is the data encoded as it was when originally submitted but the method of encoding is not even known. Whatever charset is specified in the http header is not going to be correct for all scripts and messages. Using charset=utf8 seems to cause the least problems. Though for example, it will cause many ISO-8859-1 "high bit" characters to be incorrectly displayed. | 14-Mar-09 22:50 |
| 772 | Sunanda | Thanks......We used to have that, but it created some other problems. I'll have to try to remember what and why :-) And it does not solve the download problem (I know, I tried yesterday). | 14-Mar-09 22:29 |
| 771 | Maxim | there is a specific charset for western -iso, which ensure the extra 127 bytes are correct. <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> | 14-Mar-09 21:42 |
| 770 | Sunanda | Maxim, REBOL.org emits a header <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8"> Yeah, I know we aren't utf-8 -- but experiment has shown that's the moste acceptable charset. Not sure what you are saying we could put in <head> -- can you be more specific. | 14-Mar-09 20:36 |
| 769 | Sunanda | Anton, REBOL.org uses 2.5.6.4.1 The obvious bad file is the one Scott added recently: http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=ascii-math.r If you view it with that URL, all looks good. If you click the [Download script] link you'll see many spurious high-ascii chars in the source. Those high ascii _are_ actually in the source. But where they came from is a mystery. | 14-Mar-09 20:33 |
| 768 | Maxim | I had the same kind of issues on another system. nowadays, the default encoding has become UTF-8 for many/most html handlers, so if its not specified, many new browers and tools will incorrectly break up the character data. | 14-Mar-09 18:28 |
| 767 | Maxim | note, I don't mean the http header, but the actual <HEAD> tag. | 14-Mar-09 18:25 |
| 766 | Maxim | sunanda, you can force the character encoding in the html page header... I've used that before and it worked for me. | 14-Mar-09 18:25 |
| 765 | Anton | Sunanda, can you publish some files with the 8-bit ascii and note what the problems are ? | 14-Mar-09 17:34 |
| 764 | Anton | What version of rebol is being used by rebol.org ? | 14-Mar-09 17:30 |
| 763 | Anton | Why worry? Just do it. :-P | 14-Mar-09 14:58 |
| 762 | PeterWood | At the moment, I'd be worried about standarising the Library on utf-8 as the effect of multibyte characters would have during script and mail processing is not understood. It could well be that the system handles multibyte characters without a hitch but nobody knows yet. I have started to write some scripts to try to help move to a consistent character encoding of the Library data but, due to time constraints, I have been very slow. | 14-Mar-09 14:08 |
| 761 | Sunanda | Sadly, REBOL running as CGI under the two servers I've tested (Apache and Xitami) does not seem to support the whole range of ASCII -- ASCII chars with the 8th bit set seem to cause problems. I don't know where the problem really is, but right now, we do not even support 8-bit ASCII, let alone anything more modern :-) | 14-Mar-09 9:38 |
| 760 | Gabriele | "does not support UTF-8" - what do you mean by "support"? if you mean having native encoders/decoders, no, it does not. but, utf-8 is just 8 bit characters, and it is backwards compatible with ascii. if you can handle ascii, and leave alone any char > 127, you already support utf-8. | 14-Mar-09 9:25 |
| 759 | Sunanda | As far as I know, Core 2.5.6 (what the Library CGIs runs on) does not support UTF-8. | 14-Mar-09 9:20 |
| 758 | Gabriele | why not standardize everything on UTF-8? | 14-Mar-09 9:13 |
| 757 | Sunanda | Results of a tiny bit of debugging on the ascii chars problem:
-- problem seems to be at the input stage:
-- if you have exended ascii characters (top bit set, like the 1/4 used in the script) what we get from the webserver is bad (extra, unexpected extended ascii chars)
-- only download is (visibly) affected, although the extra extended ascii chars are present in the text streams
-- though there is some REBOL mezz code (decode-cgi) that may be doing something I do not understand
-- I can replicate the problem with both Apache and Xitami which suggests the problem may be in REBOL rather than a given server. -- the quick fix would be to add accept-charset="ISO-8859-1" to the <form ....> or <textarea ....> -- but that stops all extended ascii, including the ones we want. So we won't do that. -- the slower fix has yet to emerge from the available options. | 13-Mar-09 11:11 |
| 756 | Sunanda | We've had a similar problem before (I've just checked the source code, and it's prompted my memory). To solve it, we analyse the script for various extended ascii chars and then perform some messing around on HTTP content-type headers. It's messy, and it's worked up til now......But obviously, we need some more analysing and messing around for this script. | 12-Mar-09 14:54 |
| 755 | Sunanda | Thanks, Scott. --The email script looks fine -- it's identical to what is in the Library -- Viewing the scriot works fine -- Downloading it doesn't .....Which is exactly what you reported. We are now both on the same page :-) | 12-Mar-09 14:48 |
| 754 | PeterWood | Chris, one issue that we face with the mailing list archive is not knowing how the imput is encoded. I think this is also true of scripts. | 12-Mar-09 14:44 |
| 753 | swall | Sunanda, I have emailed the zipped script to you. | 12-Mar-09 14:41 |
| 752 | Sunanda | Peter beat me to it, thanks.
Sorry Oldes, the Library does not support utf-8, despite my confused suggestion that it did.
Because we use a charset of UTF-8 in the browser header, it is _possible_ that we can more-or-less handle scripts with 2+ byte UTF-8 codings in REBOL strings! But that's not been tested. Good point, Chris -- we already have such a filter, but it is not used to turn back conributions. | 12-Mar-09 13:51 |
| 751 | Chris | Preventing any new content from posting invalid sequences, for example... | 12-Mar-09 0:11 |
| 750 | Chris | 'it', being current content. | 12-Mar-09 0:09 |
| 749 | Chris | If most of it is currently ascii, would it not just be a case of adding a few filters? | 12-Mar-09 0:09 |
| 748 | PeterWood | Supporting utf-8 will require a lot of changes ..... though probably not quite as many as moving to R3. | 12-Mar-09 0:05 |
| 747 | PeterWood | The core of the library system is old enough that it was written without considering character encoding at all. | 12-Mar-09 0:02 |
| 746 | PeterWood | In this way, the library accidentally supports utf-8 in the sense that if you upload utf-8 and display it in a browser set to display utf-8 everything will be displayed properly. | 12-Mar-09 0:01 |
| 745 | PeterWood | The library doesn't support utf-8 yet. We have found that many people's browser are set so that the browser renders the output from rebol.org as utf-8. | 11-Mar-09 23:58 |
| 744 | Oldes | so you support utf8?good to know.. next time I will upload it as utf8 | 11-Mar-09 22:31 |
| 743 | Sunanda | Thanks for the script -- and for the problem report.
Looks to me like the script, as uploaded, contained non-UTF8 characters, and they are being treated as multi-byte characters.
REBOL, and REBOL.org can really only handle ASCII....Unicode and such like is for R3. If you email (preferably in a ZIP to prevent email software from chewing up the code) the original script, I'll take a look. | 11-Mar-09 19:47 |
| 742 | swall | I just added ascii-math.r to the library. It looks fine in the view , but the downloaded file contains gibberish characters before each non-standard ascii char. This problem may be related to the problem that Oldes was having on 14-Mar-08. | 11-Mar-09 18:59 |
| 741 | Ammon | Sweet! Thanks. | 10-Mar-09 5:58 |
| 740 | Sunanda | Ammon -- those scripts are now renamed as reqeusted. | 9-Mar-09 16:16 |
| 739 | Maxim | sundanda: its cool for script owners. It adds value in suddenly being more than just a storage space... I can even check my code as I submit it.
for me anyways, it adds a feature that I can really use ... an online, simple VCS. I can make sure that a new release not only is shared, but also free of a set of bugs. I can suddenly say.. what did I change... and more easily comment on it, for example. | 8-Mar-09 20:29 |
| 738 | Ammon | =D | 8-Mar-09 20:25 |
| 737 | Sunanda | Maxim -- not sure it'll be that *cool* -- most people are probably not aware of it as you can only see it in action for the scripts you own. Ammon -- thanks again for the license link bug. It's fixed now.....Shows how seldom anyone checks license T&Cs for scripts :-) | 8-Mar-09 20:24 |
| 736 | Maxim | sunanda COOL :-) and promote it on rebol week, on the ML and in "announce" here too, really I think its a big deal/feature. I woundn't be surprised that most rebol.org users don't even know the diff was there ;-) | 8-Mar-09 19:39 |
| 735 | Sunanda | Thanks Max -- I'll take a look at making that an option on upload. | 8-Mar-09 19:37 |
| 734 | Ammon | I attempted to rename button.r to vid-button.r so the new script should be deleted and the old one renamed if possible. As for the rest of them... wizard.r TO vid-wizard.r group.r TO vid-group.r drop-down.r TO vid-drop-down.r dragbar.r TO vid-drag-bar.r date.r TO vid-date.r Since we won't be calling the GUI Dialect in R3 VID the new names should make what the scripts do clear even after R3 GUI scripts start popping up... | 8-Mar-09 19:36 |
| 733 | Maxim | in fact... might = will | 8-Mar-09 19:35 |
| 732 | Maxim | might even use rebol.org more :-) | 8-Mar-09 19:34 |
| 731 | Maxim | well what I am seeing impressed me ... I wasn't expecting that on rebol.org... really you should allow us to compare right in the update page. I know I'd use it every single time :-) | 8-Mar-09 19:34 |
| 730 | Sunanda | Maxim -- thanks....the diff function code is an embarrassing collection of random hacks. I'm hoping someone else will write a better version that could be made public :-) | 8-Mar-09 19:33 |
| 729 | Sunanda | Ammon -- thanks for bug report. | 8-Mar-09 19:32 |
| 728 | Sunanda | Ammon -- I can rename existing scripts. It's a moderator-only function. If you want it done, please let me know which ones. | 8-Mar-09 19:32 |
| 727 | Maxim | the interface is already ubber clean :-) if I had this on rebol.org update, I think It would make the update process even more appealing for potential new users. | 8-Mar-09 17:17 |
| 726 | Ammon | I second the motion! | 8-Mar-09 17:15 |
| 725 | Maxim | I mean, if we could view the diff before pressing "update" we would have something starting to look like an integrated VCS :-) | 8-Mar-09 17:14 |
| 724 | Maxim | OMG!! I just discovered there is an online DIFF engine on rebol.org !!! WOW... sunanda... you must provide that functionality upon script update, this is too awesome to hide away in an easy to miss set of links in the script statistics. | 8-Mar-09 17:13 |
| 723 | Ammon | Also, the link to the list of license tags from the [license] link of a script is broken. You have an extra slash in there. | 8-Mar-09 17:10 |
| 722 | Ammon | Sunanada, I have another question for you. While I was poking around the library earlier I noticed that I have named some of my scripts very poorly and would like to change the FILE: value in the header, which apparently just creates a new copy of the script. Is there a way to remove the old script such that I really am renaming the script rather than uploading a new one? | 8-Mar-09 17:08 |
| 721 | Ammon | Nope. I'm actually getting rebol.org in about 2 seconds but I'm seeing about 10 seconds of lag on this world. | 8-Mar-09 17:00 |
| 720 | Pekr | Guys, at the moment, rebol.org is soooo slow here, something like 10 sec to appear. Is it just my experience here, or are there any problems? ... | 8-Mar-09 16:59 |
| 719 | Ammon | Of course my syntax was wrong. It probably fairly common for someone to search the library for a specific set-word! and even if it's not, we definitely want to allow for it. I expected granular indexing as well... Thanks for the info! | 8-Mar-09 16:46 |
| 718 | Sunanda | Ammon -- some of the indexing happens in the background, so can trail 12 hours or so behind a script being updated. In the specific case of searching for an author name, the syntax you need is different: [author//maxim olivier-adlhoch] Help for searches is here: http://www.rebol.org/boiler.r?display=introduction.html | 8-Mar-09 12:39 |
| 717 | Maxim | I know hehe | 8-Mar-09 2:40 |
| 716 | Ammon | Maxim, I have the script. Playing with it now. If I was directing this question at you I would have put it in the !Liquid group. ;-) This is a question about the behind the scenes opperations of rebol.org... | 8-Mar-09 2:36 |
| 715 | Maxim | if you just put maxim in the search field, blood is in the list | 8-Mar-09 2:34 |
| 714 | Maxim | probably.... use the "latest scripts" link. | 8-Mar-09 2:33 |
| 713 | Ammon | Doing a search, "Author: Maxim" doesn't briing up his newest script, Blood.r The author field in blood.r is the same as other scripts which do show up with the above search. A search for "Liquid" does return blood.r. Is this a case of "hasn't been indexed yet"? | 8-Mar-09 2:24 |
| 712 | Sunanda | Thanks, Reichart. Geomol -- Thanks....I've made the changes and notified Carl that his documentation has been updated. | 5-Mar-09 8:23 |
| 711 | Reichart | Welcome back... | 3-Mar-09 6:19 |
| 710 | Sunanda | Any of the Librarians can change any document and/or script.....But we tend not to do that without the owner's permission. Please PM me the changes, and I'll get it sorted one way or another. Thanks! | 2-Mar-09 20:01 |
| 709 | Geomol | I found some wrong links in http://www.rebol.org/documentation.r?script=makedoc2.r The document is uploaded and owned by Carl. Is it only him, who can change the links? | 2-Mar-09 16:19 |
| 708 | Sunanda | Not really, it's a default which is set backwards to that which many people would expect. Plus an unclear error message. So my apologies again. | 1-Mar-09 9:27 |
| 707 | Izkata | Yeah, 'tis my own mistake.. oops | 1-Mar-09 9:25 |
| 706 | Sunanda | It's not a clear message -- sorry......I think it is because the package is not set as being available for downloading: http://www.rebol.org/package-information.r?script-name=arff-datamining.r | 1-Mar-09 9:22 |
| 705 | Izkata | nothing happens if I click on "help", either.. | 1-Mar-09 8:50 |
| 704 | Izkata | Is there something going on with packages? I uploaded a new one several days ago and can't easily redownload it (for testing) - repack.r keeps giving me "ERROR 306: not available right now" | 1-Mar-09 8:50 |
| 703 | Robert | In the script. But cool that it's supported. | 1-Nov-08 11:15 |
| 702 | Sunanda | Do you mean comments _in_ a script; or comments about a script (ie the discussion threads)? Either way, yes -- check the link in my previous post for the syntax and some examples. | 1-Nov-08 9:45 |
| 701 | Robert | BTW: Is it possible to search by script comments? | 1-Nov-08 9:43 |
| 700 | Sunanda | Even better script searching at REBOL.org -- we've extended the "[b]" notation to include other parts of a script and any tags the script has. The search can now be highly tuned to what you are looking for: http://www.rebol.org/boiler.r?display=introduction.html | 31-Oct-08 9:11 |
| 699 | Alan | . | 14-Sep-08 7:03 |
| 698 | Sunanda | Brianh: <I am only interested in searching the various word and path types.> Try this quick concept code. In REBOL.org's search box, use [b] as a sort-of inline refinement to limit script searches to just the body of a script, eg sing -- finds nearly 300 scripts which contain the string "sing" but sing [b] -- finds just three scripts that have the word-part "sing" in their body | 4-Sep-08 18:30 |
| 697 | Sunanda | Yes, we also index comment lines separately. Basically, we use the same logic as Carl's color-code.r to analyze the parts of a script: http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/view-script.r?script=color-code.r | 4-Sep-08 18:24 |
| 696 | Sunanda | It's pretty easy to update a script after you've contributed it.....Use the [update] link to add a new version. | 4-Sep-08 18:23 |
| 695 | BrianH | For that matter, do you index line comments separately, as LOAD filters them out? | 4-Sep-08 16:51 |
| 694 | BrianH | How easy is it to edit your scripts after they have been submitted? Do you feel comfortable adding the appropriate needs header where needed, provided you know enough about REBOL versions to determine? Can you flag the appropriate files as problematic? | 4-Sep-08 16:49 |
| 693 | Sunanda | If we can't load, we try a few tricks (like commenting out the needs: header and reloading). But still, there are one ot two that we fail with. So they don't get as well indexed as the others...And (for the same reasons) they are the ones that appear in black and white even if you click the "view in color" link. | 4-Sep-08 15:07 |
| 692 | Anton | but I am obviously not taking public submissions like rebol.org. | 4-Sep-08 14:52 |
| 691 | Anton | Oh, sorry, I don't know how many are not loadable in rebol.org. I just loaded my entire source base after fixing one that was unloadable. | 4-Sep-08 14:51 |
| 690 | Anton | Can't load ? Just skip it with with a warning message :) You still get your 99% solution. | 4-Sep-08 14:48 |
| 689 | Sunanda | We do index the files, and we have several indexes, some built by parsing parts of the script. So we can, usually, search for special parts of scripts -- like strings or comments. Part of the difficulty is that there are some scripts that we cannot do a 'load or a 'load/header on - they are broken or have an incompatible 'needs: header. So we cannot add those scripts to the sepcialised indexes. They need specialised handling :-) Watch this space -- I'm fiddling with some code that may partially need your need. | 4-Sep-08 14:34 |
| 688 | BrianH | Would it be useful to index the files? That way you could extract keywords on posting rather than at search time. | 4-Sep-08 7:45 |
| 687 | BrianH | When I am making changes to the mezzanines, I use the script library for research on existing usage of these mezzanines to see whether anything would break. When the name of a function is a common word that would show up in comments or strings, this is much more difficult. I would also like to look for third-party functions that I can't remember where they are defined or their author. | 4-Sep-08 7:44 |
| 686 | Sunanda | Interesting idea. Brian. We could certainly weight the results so those with words in the body rather than strings etc are listed higher....In fact, we already do that as one of the ranking factors. Let me think about it.... | 4-Sep-08 7:19 |
| 685 | Anton | 4.3 (Cater for variations in molding, eg. strings in the source written as "..." can be molded {...} and vice versa, depending on length.) | 4-Sep-08 6:12 |
| 684 | Anton | "We need to know where a particular .. value is in the original source string (read from file)." | 4-Sep-08 6:10 |
| 683 | Anton | (oops.. incomplete post, sorry) | 4-Sep-08 6:07 |
| 682 | Anton | Hmm... How to do that? We need to know where a particular Maybe: 1. Read script *and* Load script 2. Visit each item in the loaded block, recursively. 3. As each item is visited, check its type. 4. Depending somewhat on type, parse (in the READed script) to the molded item: 4.1 If it's a series, search for the "opener", eg. block! -> "[" 4.2 If it's a non-series, search for it molded. 4.3 | 4-Sep-08 6:07 |
| 681 | BrianH | Read above as: Just a search that filters out any-string! types would be fine. I am only interested in searching any-word! and *path! types. | 3-Sep-08 18:33 |
| 680 | BrianH | Just a search that filters out string!, file! and url! types would be fine. I am only interested in searching the various word and path types. | 3-Sep-08 18:30 |
| 679 | BrianH | I would like a way to search the script library for words in scripts, that would not return scripts that have those words in strings. I would use this function several times a week when researching function usage for my mezzanines work. | 3-Sep-08 18:27 |
| 678 | Sunanda | Thanks Gregg....That seems to have done the trick: http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/discussion.r?script=calendar.r | 10-Jul-08 16:21 |
| 677 | Gregg | Posted as a reply on REBOL.org as well. | 8-Jul-08 16:05 |
| 676 | Gregg | Looks like this line is the problem:
dp-area: area (dp-info/size - 4x0) ivory ivory edge [size: none] with [show?: false ff: day: time: none] Change to: dp-area: area (dp-info/size - 4x0) ivory ivory edge [size: 0x0] with [show?: false ff: day: time: none] | 8-Jul-08 16:02 |
| 675 | Sunanda | I thought it might be version related, but one of the VID versions I have exhibit the problem: ** Script Error: Cannot use multiply on none! value ** Where: edit-text ** Near: 2 * face/edge/size http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/discussion.r?script=calendar.r | 8-Jul-08 12:11 |
| 674 | Sunanda | Can anyone help with this problem with Sterling's Calendar application? | 8-Jul-08 12:10 |
| 673 | Gregg | Feature problem with my old install that is. The new Refresh option is what was needed. Excellent. | 4-Apr-08 17:05 |
| 672 | Gregg | So it's a psychological and feature problem. | 4-Apr-08 16:43 |
| 671 | Gregg | Looks like it was just updated thought. :-) | 4-Apr-08 16:41 |
| 670 | Gregg | I haven't used it for a long time, because it's out of date WRT content. | 4-Apr-08 16:40 |
| 669 | Gabriele | lol, ropus.r was for Core 2.0... heh. it says a lot that it still works though. (not that it does anything weird.) | 4-Apr-08 9:30 |
| 668 | btiffin | Other than Help flashing to quickly it seemed to operate ... perusal mode that is. | 3-Apr-08 21:55 |
| 667 | btiffin | I had it running on 2.7.6 Win98. But it required a change of an OPEN/WAIT to OPEN/NO-WAIT. It's from 2001 so ... | 3-Apr-08 21:54 |
| 666 | Geomol | Hm, from dec. 1999, so not supported for a long time. | 3-Apr-08 21:54 |
| 665 | Geomol | Do you know, with what version it works? | 3-Apr-08 21:52 |
| 664 | Geomol | Cool! I'll see, if I can find it... | 3-Apr-08 21:48 |
| 663 | btiffin | John; Gabriele posted ropus.r to the library! :) I think it only needs a change to an OPEN/WAIT to be 2.7 | 3-Apr-08 21:48 |
| 662 | btiffin | Plus ... if you can't tell; I've read Agile, never done Agile, but I think it fits as a counter balance to REBOL Cowboy. Plus ... don't take me using the moniker Cowboy to mean a bad thing. It has been the method of many a good piece of REBOL software, just perhaps not what some IT managers want to see. | 3-Apr-08 21:47 |
| 661 | Geomol | I don't use Desktop Librarian. I'm not absolutely sure why. Maybe because I don't use the desktop much. And why not that? Again, not absolutely sure. Because it feels a little weird!? Because it needs a Directory Opus (from Amiga) kind of tool!? | 3-Apr-08 21:46 |
| 660 | btiffin | If what I know about Agile is anywhere near close, we'd also need a "customer" or two. To be open, honest and critical. But those individuals, while having an idea of what they want to see, can't really be exisiting Library Team members ... I don't think. Any Library Team members not involved in dev, would be the "management" | 3-Apr-08 21:38 |
| 659 | btiffin | How many people use the Desktop Librarian? If not, why? If so, how? And if the answer to the first question is more than 1, who would be up for a documented experiment in REBOL/Agile team development? It would be starting from a 60%ish completed RebGUI app with big big plans (and a potential complete rewrite to fit with a could-be-soon Revault). There are definite and defineable 'pieces' involved. R2 mind. See; I dropped the ball a few months back and need a reason slash motivation to restart as rebol.org is too valuable a resource to not. :) | 3-Apr-08 21:20 |
| 658 | Sunanda | Thanks Oldes. Part of the problem is that all pages served from REBOL.org are served as charset=utf-8 even if a specific needs a different charset. We need to make that more flexible :-) | 14-Mar-08 12:11 |
| 657 | Oldes | I've added encoding: 'cp1252 into header... it's up to rebol.org now to use such an info and convert such a script into utf8 before displaying it in html | 14-Mar-08 11:04 |
| 656 | Oldes | the script is correct for download http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/view-script.r?script=code-colorizer.r but not for display. | 14-Mar-08 11:02 |
| 655 | Oldes | no.. it's not working:( | 14-Mar-08 11:01 |
| 654 | Oldes | I will try to upload the script directly (not from webform to see it it's deformed as well) | 14-Mar-08 10:27 |
| 653 | Oldes | There is big problem with rebol.org library if you are using different than ascii chars. I've just submited a script which contains latin2 chars and it's not uploaded correctly as there were converted to utf8 (so the script will not be working correctly as the chars are used in parse. | 14-Mar-08 10:23 |
| 652 | btiffin | I'd like to see this as a system/standard/script field. For rebol.org there could be helper forms with some common choices but I'd also like to see it support url! in the submission validator (although that may have longevity problems). Would system/standard/script/Rights, /License and /Disclaimer (or Warranty) cover all the legalese? | 1-Feb-08 17:12 |
| 651 | Geomol | Let's look at bit closer at the REBOL header block and licenses. In the library (http://www.rebol.org), REBOL scripts have a library entry in the header, and it contains a field named "license" with about 10 different possibilities. Is it enough to specify the license like that, or do we have to put a license text and/or warranty in the header of our scripts? Not just in the library but in general. Does anyone know, or should we ask an attorney? | 1-Feb-08 15:42 |
| 650 | Sunanda | If you are a member of this Altme world, then you may also have been a member of its predeccessors: REBOL World and REBOL2 world. There is now a private archive of those worlds on REBOL.org: http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/aga-index.r However, you will only see them if your REBOL.org membership profile says you were a member -- they were *private* worlds, so we cannot make the posts publicly available. If you were a member of either world and want access to the archive, please just ask -- just let me know your World user name and your REBOL.org member name. | 9-Oct-07 5:03 |
| 649 | Sunanda | And, of course, if you use UNIX date format [seconds from 1-jan-1970], you have to politely pretend the dozen or so leap seconds inserted since then do not exist. | 19-Jul-07 6:08 |
| 648 | btiffin | I liked this one from Dave Mills NTP RFC1305... There will exist an 200-picosecond interval, henceforth ignored, every 136 years when the 64-bit field will be zero and thus considered invalid. | 19-Jul-07 5:53 |
| 647 | btiffin | lol | 19-Jul-07 5:47 |
| 646 | Sunanda | Close enough for jazz :-) | 19-Jul-07 5:47 |
| 645 | btiffin | Sorry. Slight misread, seconds and milliseconds... What? I'm only out by 3 orders of magnitude. :) | 19-Jul-07 5:43 |
| 644 | btiffin | Graham; I just did a search, Gregg posted date-to-epoch in the DZone snippets. Along with epoch-to-date. Looks like standard run of the mill world class Gregg code. :) | 19-Jul-07 5:37 |
| 643 | btiffin | Redirected from I'm new...javascript time Integer date and times are a problem without some real mucking about. | 19-Jul-07 5:29 |
| 642 | btiffin | For everybody...no more mucking with date formatting... Use Chris' %form-date.r from the library. form-date now/precise "%c" full REBOL timestamps nicely formatted. "%s" added for seconds with nanosecond precision. (Precision...not accuracy) All your dates and times can line up now. :) | 19-Jul-07 4:57 |
| 641 | Geomol | :-) | 30-Jun-07 12:02 |