World: r3wp

Do you have a picture for the other orientation?

it seems 214 is the closest one

OK, thanks.

So, both http://rebol.hmkdesign.dk/files/r3/gui/214.pngand http://rebol.hmkdesign.dk/files/r3/gui/225.png
are examples of the Group style now.

The style uses a LAYOUT-MODE attribute, which determines the preferred 
orientation.

The http://rebol.hmkdesign.dk/files/r3/gui/214.pnghas LAYOUT-MODE 
set to columns, while the http://rebol.hmkdesign.dk/files/r3/gui/225.png
has LAYOUT-MODE set to rows.

Neither of the pictures represents the Panel style now. The Panel 
style would have "regular" rows as well as "regular" columns at the 
same time.

Is it possible to define the number of columns or rows?

(depending on LAYOUT-MODE)

The columns or rows are "internally" implemented as lines, and if 
you switch the LAYOUT-MODE you just tell the resizing algo to handle 
the lines as rows or as columns

well, why not to use LAY-X, LAY-XY or something like that?

No, it is just one style, not two

It may sound a bit cryptic, but LAY simply exactly states that we 
are going to somehow layout the elements

Ladislav - I thought about unifying the naming, so replacing GROUP 
by specific LAY-XY

in group the objects are organized into either rows or columns (internally 
lines all the time), i.e. XY is misleading

Summary: in a group, objects are arranged into lines, that are handled 
depending on the LAYOUT-MODE as either rows or columns

LAY-ANY, LAY-COLUMNS, LAY-ROWS :-)

Pekr, we do not need three names, it is just one style

btw - why "panel" is not fitting anymore? I can see no problem in 
using a panel name for what you described ...

(currently called a "group")

I tried to propose one name LAY-* to prelace both panel and group

prelace = replace

no way, there are two styles, we need exactly two names

I hope, you now know, what does the group style look like

Well, I always objected against two things - panel and group having 
different visuals, and both styles having different aproach to how 
they lay things (vertical vs horizontal)

But Carl told me, it is intentional. I always had to look at docs, 
to see, which style does what :-)

You still do not know *what is a group*

I mean *what is a group now*

Ah, so you changed the meaning of a group style?

Didn't I succeed to explain it yet?

yes, group behavior is as shown in the pictures. that is different 
from before, if you'll notice that faces are arranged in "lines".

well, I don't understand the meaning of those images ... too abstract 
for me :-)

They are both groups, in the http://rebol.hmkdesign.dk/files/r3/gui/214.png
you can see the columns, in http://rebol.hmkdesign.dk/files/r3/gui/225.png
you can see rows, can't you?

just look at the box arrangement, and you'll see that you can draw 
a straight line between them in one direction, but you can't in the 
other. that should be enough.

just like the arrangement of articles in an old-style newspaper.

Henrik - by "lines" you mean probably rows, right? OK - what happens, 
if one GUI element in particular row is wider? The whole row becomes 
that wide, or it shrinks?

http://rebol.hmkdesign.dk/files/r3/gui/213.png

It does not probably matter. What is being shown in those images 
is probably the layout mechanism of the group style, right?

yes

so the group style can lay things in either rows, or solumns, or 
both?

not both. that is what PANEL is currently for.

and how does it differ to panel style? (hopefully now I will understand 
the difference :-)

Do you understand what Henrik said?

Well, group style layouts things in either rows, or columns, depending 
upon layout-mode argument. The panel style layouts styles in both 
directions?

Right

And now we need new name for which one, and why the current name 
does not fit anymore?

that is, not "layouts styles" - the panel layout lays the objects 
so, that you always *see* both the columns as well as the rows

So, this is how these two styles work, and there was a question, 
whether the names "group" and "panel" were appropriated.

err, appropriate

I would stay with recent naming them - both names kind of represent 
a "container" kind of a meaning. It is a documentation thing imo.