« first day (3244 days earlier)      last day (125 days later) » 

12:20 AM
@HostileFork Is anybody else using Chrome and getting total silence from that link?
12:42 AM
@MarkI Using chrome and it's a bit of an odd UI, he wrote it using his own graphics library...you can play several songs at once, but you can't really pick when they start. I like song 4.
Funny I remember these names like "nuke of anarchy" from back in the day. .MOD came from Amiga culture.
@HostileFork Been in crunch-time at my work for the month of Sept. Pray thee I beg your patience a week so I can wrap up the loose ends.
@Edoc Well it's not like I want to be writing bash scripts and Travis .yaml anyway. :-) I would rather be working on language problems. So letting me go work on LET and => is preferable, I'm just trying to be a bit more prudent in process.
And that means doing things that might not be "fun" (in the long term interest of "more fun later")
1:04 AM
@HostileFork :) I am excited to get things moving on this, so hang tight. I think we will should see some avenues of oppty when we get a dialect framework in place (which is really what I’ve been pushing toward).
@Edoc I think if we focus on modest goals (e.g. not reinventing cryptography or solving AI, but maybe... getting things right that no one has yet) that's the path to success.
Sorry you’ll be working on possibly more drudgery in the mean time.
@Edoc It's not fun to start, but once you finish it, kind of satisfying. I think this server robustness test is pleasing...*in hindsight*. It was a pain to get in the mood to do it in the first place, but now that it's there... it paves a way forward.
@HostileFork Yes I alternate between loftier goals and making enough of a good first impression to make sure ppl see the bigger picture.
And, I might just go ahead and go all the way to full duplex ports, because... well, why not. It's close.
Why should you have to split your code into a "read phase" and a "write phase" when the socket can do both at once? This reminds me a bit of BiModem, which felt rather "revolutionary" in its day.
1:09 AM
@HostileFork OK figured it out. Super weird: when I click the link or paste the url into the address bar, and even if I click on it and hit enter or F5 to refresh, nothing plays (but the rest of the UI works fine). Finally, I tried ctrl-F5, and bingo! SOUND!!
Who knows why it doesn't work the other ways.
Little known fact from those days: check the last name on the author of Telix... @Adrian's brother :-)
@HostileFork I had a bizarre thought: I also hated write/wrote and read/read, but then I played around with write/written and read/gotten instead ... I think I like those better. If they're needed at all, of course.
1:47 AM
@MarkI Interesting thought. It's kind of why Rebol sort of has a kind of "infinite artistic space" while other languages seem like NewSpeak... if I'm to be generous then it's like Morpheus's speech to Neo.
Neo: {Why?}
Neo: {What are you trying to tell me, that I can dodge bullets?}
5 hours later…
6:46 AM
posted on September 18, 2019 by lucindamichele

[Reddit] Heads up to all Red-ucers: The planned split between red/red and red/view will take place on Wednesday 18th at 16:00 UTC. As the View module grows over time, it has become more convenient to manage its commits, PR, issues, etc in a separate repo. We will therefore move the View code into a different repo, but keep it linked to the same place as now using Git's submodules. Save your w

7:00 AM
@HostileFork Thank you for your email. Needed toaster instructions desperately. Say hi to Jebediah for me if you see him ;-)
4 hours later…
11:19 AM
I have proposed we be able to say things like for-each [1 2 3] (=> append block) as an alternative point-free syntax for something like for-each @x [1 2 3] [append block x]. But the @ seems heavy. Perhaps it is nicer as for-each 'x [1 2 3] [append block x]; it can still use <skip> detection for a QUOTED! item, but the tick mark is a lot lighter. What say you, @rgchris?
Calculation looks a little weird there. for-each '(second [x y]) [1 2 3] [append block y]. But... maybe this is the logical future for soft-quoting
I'm leaning into this idea that @word is a LIT-WORD!, meaning "literally THAT", for such mechanics as print ["this will be molded" @block]. And if we go with append block @some-other-block adding the second block without splicing, it's just about stricter literalism. This seems unrelated to "quoting".
3 hours later…
2:46 PM
Q: How to run Rebol script on Linux

shitpoetI can not run this sample Rebol script REBOL [] alert "Hello World" on Debian 10 Linux 64-bit OS. The script is from the official Rebol tutorial. I'm trying to run it using this command from console: $ rebol hi but it fails with error message Script: "Untitled" (none) ** Script Error: a...

3:40 PM
@HostileFork I'll have to look at the distinction there (am a bit behind on grokking the difference between the handle, I mean, inert word type as it pertains to APPEND).
A: How to run Rebol script on Linux 64-bit

shitpoetThe problem is that Rebol has two versions: core and view. And core version does not has graphics support. But view version does not support 64-bit Linux directly now. No 64-bit build exists, but there's 32-bit build. To run an alert example using 32-bit build of Rebol View one may need to inst...

2 hours later…
5:27 PM
@rgchris The proposal is simply that @ expressions can be used as an alternative to /ONLY. append block @value thus the same as append/only block value. Idea is to then be stricter about non-/ONLY appends requiring blocks. A shorter notation makes this less of a hassle. The end result would be getting bitten less often by that one day that your arbitrary appending code tries to append a BLOCK! and it splices unexpectedly.
I've wondered if allowing TEXT! as well as BLOCK! without the /ONLY is a sweet spot...where it's just enough to be convenient for most cases in the wild, while bringing a reminder to the table when you're writing truly generic value code that you need to make a decision about splicing.
A similar lenience has seemingly worked well for PRINT, so you can say print "Hello" or print ["evaluating:" 1 + 2]... but then you get errors on print x if x is not a text or block (or blank for blank-in-null-out, or specifically NEWLINE). That drastically reduces the odds of performing evaluations when you didn't mean to... e.g. x is not a block for many cases, but then one day it is a block, and you run code accidentally.
my-debug-dumper: function [value] [print "Debugging:" print value]

x: 10
y: <some-tag>
z: [format 'hard-drive]

my-debug-dumper x
my-debug-dumper y
my-debug-dumper z  ; oh, crap.
Greetings @NReilingh, feel free to ask any Rebol questions if you have them. Including I guess "what the heck is Rebol". :-)
If we continued this pattern, then print @x would give you a "print/only" behavior. e.g. x: [format 'hard-drive] print @x would get you the literal output [format 'hard-drive], and x: 1020 print @x would not error.
But you could alternately say print [x] if you preferred how that looked, and it would be equivalent. It seems our current thinking is that works even with blanks, e.g. print [_] is a no-op and returns null instead of void.
Anyway--meandering point being, that collect [keep "this could be similarly lenient"] but collect [keep [<you'd-have-to-use/ONLY-or-a-BLOCK!>]] for anything besides text or blocks.
That might be just enough to be convenient, while still putting in a bit of a tripwire to raise awareness for those trying to write truly "generic" code--either put it in a block so it splices, or use /ONLY or @(...)
6:35 PM
posted on September 18, 2019 by @hostilefork Brian Dickens

@hostilefork wrote: I was working with the httpd server, when I tried to write some code that would respond with ever-longer strings on each request. If you don't see what's wrong with it, don't feel bad: import %httpd.reb n: 0 str: "HighCodepointCat(😺)" wait srv: open [scheme: 'httpd 8000 [ n: n + 1 expected: copy str loop n [append expec

