nevermind, I am not the one pushing you to try it. However, there are many potential users who don't even know they could use it, and only once they tried, they found out what the benefits were.
Maxim
I am sure its far superior to prebol in many ways. It just doesn't provide extra features beyond what I already have in my toolchain. note that the pre-processing bugs I have are with code which isn't using my normal toolchain.
its a 2 year mess of very complex code re-written and merged with prototypes, over and over (I've been working almost full time for a year simply cleaning it and organising it , without adding any new real features).
Ladislav
However, giving up on LOAD and MOLD(/all) you are actually losing one of the REBOL advantages - the metacircularity.
"It just doesn't provide extra features beyond what I already have in my toolchain." - I am pretty sure it does, you just don't know them
Maxim
I do use it, but curtailed and under control with LOAD/next only on the parts I need it to.
Ladislav
For example, does your toolchain offer you user-definable directives?
Maxim
well, my distribution manager is linked and runs within a rebol script, so I can actually perform any rebol trick on the source.
Ladislav
(in INCLUDE, all directives are "user-defined" in a sense)
Maxim
but anyhow... I have a different application model than most rebolers... so I don't require the exact same kind of toolchain as others.
Ladislav
Yes, that is a part of REBOL flexibility, you can use anything you like.
Maxim
The ability to build our own tools in a pretty small timeframe is one of REBOL's main features.
Ladislav
However, regarding the toolchain - I seriously recommend all users to try INCLUDE, otherwise they don't even know what they are missing.
Maxim
and I agree with this.
I know for a fact how hard you worked for it to be non-intrusive to other toolchains.
Ladislav
(many users have reimplemented their own version, but my version has probably the longest PITL usage, development and testing "tradition")
...and also it incorporates many ideas/advices from many sources, not just my own ideas
Ladislav
INCLUDE taught me that it really makes sense to maintain backward compatibility between R3 and R2, which is what BrianH is doing when backporting some R3 functions to R2.
Also, the INCLUDE is striving (successfully IMO) to "bridge the gap" between R3 and R2 by providing the same functionality in the same piece of code. Also, I bet it is much easier to have it written in the "forward/backward" compatible manner than to need to maintain two different scripts.
DocKimbel
Ladislav: can INCLUDE now be used to run the same code both from sources and encapped, with no code change?
Ladislav
I am not completely sure what your question is, but we use it to:
1) run the code from the source 2) encap the above code as well, both at the same time
When I click on any file icon here, I usually use INCLUDE to run the code, in fact