World: r3wp

yep.  but in R3, I can actually see that the window resize events 
are being triggered while we drag the window size.. but for some 
reason they are not being pushed to the handler.

in R2 its pretty weird.   the event handler *accumulates* all resize 
events and then when you release the resize bar... it sends all of 
them to the handler in one stream.... just totally not at the right 
time  ;-)

but for some reason they are not being pushed to the handler.

 - is that the mezzanine level, or low level? If the fix is easy, 
 I am all for it. I just think that it might not be the priority. 
 The question is, if the resizing is not confused by receiving wrong 
 info, when holding the mouse button down, resizing here and there, 
 and then releasing it :-)

afaik, its within the port mechanism, when events are created, for 
some reason, the resize events don't end up at the port handler.


I remember trying to fix this in the host-kit and didn't find the 
solution.  I tried a few things but nothing worked... so I moved 
on but that's like 3 months ago already so the details are fuzzy 
in my mind.

Pekr, if you want to make e.g. a HPANEL with a given content, you 
can use the MAKE-FACE function anyway:

child: make-face 'hpanel [break-after: 1 content: [button "OK"]]
view child

thanks ....

are there any accessor functions, how to easily list face, pane, 
style etc. structure? I mean without references? I would like to 
see (e.g. in docs, or by query) the ability to list face, gob, style 
structure ...

Pekr, regarding your

lay: [

		when [load] do [print "Load trigger!"]
		clicker
		button "Do" alert "Button pressed!"

  button "Big Quit Button" maroon options [max-size: 2000x50] quit
		bar
		text "Toggle button..."
		t1: toggle "Toggle" of 'tog
		button "Set False" set 't1 false
		button "Set True"  set 't1 true
		toggle "Mirror" attach 't1
		toggle "Mutex" of 'tog
		bar
		text "Radios and check boxes"
		radio "Set above toggle on"  set 't1 true
		radio "Set above toggle off" set 't1 false
		bar
		check "Checkbox attached to above toggle" attach 't1


]

child: make-face 'vpanel []
set-panel-content child lay
view child


example - it is incorrect, since you try to give VIEW a HPANEL instead 
of a WINDOW, I suppose, that it was just a test, how it would look?

Yes, it was a test, to isolate the example form layout from the demo 
....

Pekr, since you are passing the FACE object as argument to VIEW, 
currently, it jsust shows what you pass.

I thought that gob, panel, are directly "viewable"

So in your case the example should look like:

lay: [
	backdrop [
		<your layout here>
	]
]
okno: make-face 'window reduce/no-set [content: lay]
view okno

what is 'window type? I remember from the past, that it was stated, 
that just "view lay" simply adds lay into the panel, which is just 
- implicit?

Every face is 'directly' viewable but it won't resize always correctly 
unless you don't comply to the resizing rules

It just should be - easy ... or the directly viewable face is - useless 
...

In the current VIEW code the FACE arg case is simple low-level stuff. 
But we could use th AS-IS refinement for this current behaviour. 
If you don't specify /AS-IS then the passed FACE will be wrapped 
into the appropriate window sturcture as it is in the VIEW block! 
case.

Is 'window type just a panel? Or special window gob?

If WINDOW would be just a panel there won't be need for that WINDOW 
style no? :) Anyway, the WINDOW is the base style which controls 
all the content.
The structure looks like:
WINDOW [	; this is the main container GOB
	BACKDROP [ ;renders solid background under the content
		<your layout>
	]
]

and if I don't specify backdrop? Aha, so window is not just anonymous 
parameter to make-face, but a regular style?

yes, window is a style

btw - I don't like the name make-face, to make a window, which is 
a special style. We have:

make-panel
make-face
make-style


in the above case, window, is a widget for me. I really don't know, 
if we have terminology OK here. I simply don't regard instantiated 
style, being a face? Or is it aligned correctly?

We have: make-panel

 - wrong, you do not have any make-panel, I thought you read that 
 above

You do have just MAKE-FACE, which makes a face for you, as specified

yes, but I still don't understand it. My latest understanding is, 
that this function is going to be overhauled? Or - should I forget 
it exists, regard it being an internal function?

Forget to use it at all

ok, so what paramters make-face uses as first argument? Can I use 
any style name? E.g. make-face 'button?

You need to specify the style of the face you need to create

Of course, only existing styles (styles you, or someone else defined) 
can be used

So basically I can create instance of any style? If so, then heck, 
it is more flexible than I thought :-)

Yes, it is

I initially thought only 'hpanel, 'vpanel is possible, and that it 
is only for panel :-) Well, now I am cool with make-face :-)

I simply don't regard instantiated style, being a face?

 - why not, if we "borrow" the class-based OOP terminology, then styles 
 may be considered analogies of classes, and faces may be considered 
 analogies of instances (objects) of their styles

Why following works:

child: make-face 'window reduce/no-set [content: lay]

while following does not?

child: make-face 'window compose/deep [content: [(lay)]]

Here, the latter works as well

This one should work too:

okno: make-face 'window compose/only [content: lay]

Pekr, using only the MAKE-FACE for making faces was a step for simplifiing 
things. No need to know any other functions for that.

** Script error: button has no value
** Where: make make make-face catch either either -apply- do

** Near: make styl/facets opts options: make object! any [opts []] 
ta...

You need to show the code, for me it works

sorry, my last example should have been:

child: make-face 'window compose/only [content: (lay)]

lay: [button "OK"]
child: make-face 'window compose/deep [content: (lay)]
view child

ah, my bad :-( I miss the enclosing block to lay

you need to use either the one you wrote:

child: make-face 'window compose/deep [content: [(lay)]]

,or the one I wrote

can you pass an object to make-face?

the style has to be specified as a word, if that is what your question 
was about

it was the data argument, instead of fiddling with composing a block.

Aha, you meant options? They can be supplied as #[none] meaning "no 
options supplied", or as a map! as well

but not an object?

not currently, do you want to have such an alternative as well?

you should use a map when you don't like a block

I don't see why not. I think there would be plenty of advantages 
in allowing objects as face options. They are easier to build, store 
and configure than blocks.