r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[!REBOL3 GUI]

Ladislav
22-Dec-2010
[4683]
GUI work log update: ON-CONTENT revision done, debugging the changes. 
One of the changes is a removal of the PANEL/FACES block. Reasons:


- data aren't normalized, since the contents of the panel are listed 
both in panel/gob and in panel/faces

- thus, twice as much memory used, and unnecessary maintenance of 
the panel/faces block is necessary

- the not normalized nature was visible anyway, since the order of 
faces was not guaranteed to be the same

- to get the block when needed, it is possible to use a FACES? function 
returning such a block on demand
Pekr
22-Dec-2010
[4684x2]
what about calling it get-faces?
or get-content? That would be a good match for container styles? 
....
Henrik
22-Dec-2010
[4686]
I assume FACES? will only be used inside styles, so it should be 
a short name.
Anton
23-Dec-2010
[4687]
faces-of
Pekr
23-Dec-2010
[4688]
+1
Cyphre
23-Dec-2010
[4689]
New 'X-mas' release of R3-GUI is available for download at http://www.rm-asset.com/code/downloads/

top-level changes:

-smarter face update mechanism
-improved dynamic panel content handling
-internal optimizations and more system-friendly redesign
-cleanup of obsolete code parts

some more detailed notes:


- panels can now contain normal, VISIBLE faces, HIDDEN faces (just 
invisible, but taking the same space as the visible faces), IGNORED 
faces (invisible, and not taking any space), FIXED (visible, but 
not resizing with the panel, having a fixed position and size)

- the ON-CONTENT actors for all panels (HGROUP, VGROUP, VPANEL, HPANEL) 
now are as much compatible with series function as practical, taking 
an integer index, high-level function can take a gob or a face to 
specify the position as well

- Data optimization: FACES attribute removed to not need to store 
and maintain the same information twice, risking the conflicts (they 
were already present, order of faces was not identical)


You can also download the latest R3.exe from our site which contains 
LOAD-GUI that directly loads the actual release. This way you are 
always using the latest R3GUI codebase.


We'll be updating the 'old' documentation soon to be up-to-date with 
our current R3GUI version. So interested developers can start using 
it for real or participate on the project.
Ladislav
23-Dec-2010
[4690]
And, to not forget, thanks to Cyphre's effort, the VGROUP and HGROUP 
styles now properly use the RETURN keywords allowing the *group styles 
to have rows/columns with unequal lengths
Andreas
23-Dec-2010
[4691]
Very nice, congrats!
Kaj
23-Dec-2010
[4692]
Sounds good
Pekr
23-Dec-2010
[4693]
ha! :-)
Claude
23-Dec-2010
[4694]
super many thanks for it .....but demo not working !!!!!
Henrik
23-Dec-2010
[4695]
Demo is still based on Carl's old GUI, I believe. only LOAD-GUI has 
changed.
Kaj
23-Dec-2010
[4696]
You may want to patch that, too
Claude
23-Dec-2010
[4697]
it could be a good idea to upgrade demo too.
Kaj
23-Dec-2010
[4698]
Upgrading would probably mean a rewrite
Claude
23-Dec-2010
[4699]
well some guru could do this job and show us bests practices with 
load-gui !
Henrik
23-Dec-2010
[4700]
actually, there is a big bunch of tests in the zipped source code 
that I uploaded a few days ago. those contain some examples for study.
Gregg
23-Dec-2010
[4701]
Thanks GUI team!
Oldes
23-Dec-2010
[4702x2]
I don't like how you use function names like faces? to return other 
than boolean values.
names like: back-face?, next-face? should be better:  prev-face, 
next-face
nve
23-Dec-2010
[4704]
Do you a demo script ?
Oldes
23-Dec-2010
[4705x2]
I mean in R3 gui.
For example I would prefere FACES-OF instead of FACES? as Anton sugested.. 
in the latest sources is used faces? And there is more such a cases 
which I don't like. I really use the names ended with ? only for 
logic.
Kaj
23-Dec-2010
[4707]
I agree
Henrik
24-Dec-2010
[4708]
I think the idea was to separate functions from actual faces.
Oldes
24-Dec-2010
[4709]
the functions map-inner and map-outer are not used anymore?
Henrik
24-Dec-2010
[4710]
http://94.145.78.91/files/r3/gui/r3-gui-src.zip

Updated to latest sources and a build is now inside as well.
Oldes
24-Dec-2010
[4711]
Ah... map-event is the old map-inner native function
Ladislav
24-Dec-2010
[4712]
FACES-OF:FACES? preferences - the current count is 3 (developers 
- Cyphre, Ladislav, Henrik) : 3 ( Anton, Pekr, Oldes)
Anton
24-Dec-2010
[4713]
Oldes, I agree about the slight inappropriateness of back-face? next-face? 
having the '?'. However, I also don't like much the same names without 
the '?', as I used such words as variables in some algorithms. I 
tentatively suggest back-face-of next-face-of.
Henrik
24-Dec-2010
[4714]
Anton, that might be a good idea.
ChristianE
24-Dec-2010
[4715]
+1 for FACES-OF
Oldes
24-Dec-2010
[4716]
I totally agree with you, Anton. I don't care that the world is longer 
if it improves readability of the code.
Andreas
24-Dec-2010
[4717]
+1 for FACES-OF
PeterWood
24-Dec-2010
[4718x3]
+1 for FACES-OF
Oldes: there are a number of REBOL functions with a ? that return 
something other than boolean - length? and type? immediately spring 
to mind!
I can see that they would be more meaningful if they were called 
length-of and type-of  though.
Kaj
24-Dec-2010
[4721]
They're also exceptions to the general rule, because the word without 
? is used too much as a variable or another function, as Anton says
Gregg
24-Dec-2010
[4722]
+1 for FACES-OF
Claude
25-Dec-2010
[4723]
Merry Christmas
Ladislav
25-Dec-2010
[4724]
Re: "They're also exceptions to the general rule" - the general rule 
*is* to use the question mark for such functions, though. The FACES-OF 
"convention" is not a REBOL convention. In fact, it is more like 
a C convention.
Pekr
25-Dec-2010
[4725x2]
Ladislav: and what about words-of, values-of? Those did not exist 
in R2, but were added to R3. Faces-of fits that naming scheme ....
having consistent naming conventions across the board is imo always 
a tough call. Naturally I can understand, why you have selected short 
"faces", and adding question mark ...
Andreas
25-Dec-2010
[4727x2]
Even in R2 we had maximum-of and minimum-of.
In R3 A110 we have 8 "-of" words and 16 non-logic! "?" words (+4 
"?" console convenience words).
BrianH
25-Dec-2010
[4729]
I prefer the *-of naming, even if they might get complaints about 
not being reflectors (most of the -of words are reflectors).
Andreas
25-Dec-2010
[4730]
Quite a few of the 16 existing "?" non-logic! words fall in the backwards-compatibility 
category (e.g. exists? index? info? length? modified? offset? size? 
type?).
BrianH
25-Dec-2010
[4731x2]
Some of the ? words won't be able to be changed because of backwards 
compatibility (this is a #667 situation, not a #666).
We could add new words in addition to the old, but not get rid of 
the old. At least that's the policy (so far).