World: r3wp

Pekr, Kaj :

checking, and modifying the code. In some tens of minutes,I will 
put a new version, with the latest r3-gui.r3 version. Later (in some 
days) I will go more deep in the non working tests.
Pekr, thank you for the doc patch : it works

Thanks

just posted an updated version of the test-demo (version 0.3.0). 
It includes the latest version of r3-gui, dated 28-Jan-2011.
http://www.colineau.fr/rebol/downloads/tests-R3Gui-3.zip

Brian, I don't have Windows. My life here is hard enough without 
adding that back into the mix

Kaj, please test it under wine ... and then focus on ReBorCon ;-)

Yep. Brian, in any case thanks for your constructive summary

RMA seems not to understand (or it is not its priority) the importance 
of visuals

 - That is not correct. The visual design is prioritized exactly where 
 it needs to be: When the architecture is settling. It would be *crazy* 
 to start doing skin work now, as styles are changing all the time. 
 I once fell into that trap on a project and spent 6 months redesigning 
 the same skin and in the end, we got nowhere.

Is the way of how styles are being drawn compatible with Carl's GUI. 
I definitely request scroller being progress + arrow button based, 
as I have goose bumps looking into the recen one, which has to come 
from different planet probably :-)

I mean - Carl's scrollbar was nearly perfect, is there any easy way 
I could port it?

You mean Car'ls scrollbar in R2? Because the R3 version is one big 
draw block, AFAIR.

I definitely request scroller being progress + arrow button based

 - I suppose you mean slider instead of progress? Anyhow, I'm not 
 sure that's likely to happen, as a slider is not the same thing as 
 a scrollbar and there would be too much code needed to write both 
 so they fit together.

no, taken from Carl's gui. How the hell scrollbar can be 16pixels, 
whereas progress is 22 pixels? It look like Mac OS-9 relic of the 
past, and is completly off with the rest of the design? I want to 
have it fixed, before I go mad :-)

I'm not sure any of that makes sense. Sorry. :-)

Progress is even *less* compatible with scrollbar and would take 
even more code to fit into scrollbar.

My opinion is, that design wise - scroller could be just progress 
+ 2 arrow buttons. And that is also where I am not sure about your 
aproach. It is clearly visible, that you are not using compound styles? 
Why scroller has different arrows from arrow-button?

scroller could be just progress + 2 arrow buttons

 - and that won't happen, because it's an inflexible solution, when 
 we start working more seriously on the skin, where each arrow will 
 likely have individual draw blocks customized for each direction. 
 It only works in simple GUIs like VID, where the appearance is just 
 a pixel edge and some flat shading. In that sense, it might make 
 sense to have a separate arrow style, but it won't work here.

well, the fact is, that we have separate arrow-button, no?

... and it has to solve the shadows anyway ....

view [progress 50% slider scroller] - try this code to see what I 
mean ... and try the same code in Carl's gui. What is wrong with 
his scroller? It looked much better.

we have an arrow style?

yes :-)

I don't see it. What's the name?

view [arrow-button]

I see. But the result is the same. You are too focused on the appearance.

If we don't reuse the code, then I wonder, if we have not failed 
design wise. Because then it leads to reimplementation of arrows 
for each particular style, and then no wonder that we are in a messy 
situation, if each style uses different arrows?

We reuse the code when it makes sense. In this case it doesn't necessarily 
make sense, because an arrow is a rectangular button with a particular 
draw block. There is no gain in trying to cram it into the scroller 
style, because skin-wise you will need to adjust it anyway, which 
is more code. That may not be the case in the finished scroller style.

ergh... delete the last sentence.

ok, then appearance wise, it should use identical draw blocks? E.g. 
in Windows apps, arrow is arrow, being it part of drop-down, spinner, 
scrollbar - still the same style?

it should use identical draw blocks
 - you can't count on that.

I don't necessarily want styles being somehow magically compound, 
if the only thing you need is to use a draw block, and in fact "integrating" 
multiple styles together is even beyond my imagination technically 
wise, but I request identical visual representation ....

OK, different qeustion - how is materials influencing draw block? 
only via parameters?

identical representation may not make sense, but again, you are probably 
used to only using Windows.

Because I am thinking into looking into Carl's scroller, trying to 
replace RMA's draw block. I wonder, if it could break because of 
material system, or would it work?

In the draw block, materials are gradients and colors, so they are 
only color and gradient parameters to draw primitives.

Hmm, I don't have Carl's styles available :-(, only some GUI related 
code. I wonder if it was ever available.

But - technically wise I just might remove draw block (replace it 
with zero or minimal code), and style would still work? So free to 
play whatever the way I like with the style visual representation?

it should work. I would try replacing each part with simple colored 
boxes, so you know where the boundaries are.

good tip, thanks ....

what is viewport-box? Something related to the box model?

hmm, viewport-box, margin-box, padding-box, border-box. It seems 
the viewport-box is the total outer bounding box for the face ....

Yes, these are the boxmodel attributes, as named in the recent versions 
of the R3 GUI

Cyphre promised to update the documentation for the boxmodel, as 
a part of the upcoming update.

The updated version of the %r3-gui.r3 currently looks as follows:

REBOL [
    title: "R3-GUI"
    from: "RM-Asset"
    license: http://www.rebol.com/r3/rsl.html
    version: 1917
    date: 25-Feb-2011/17:50:30.907555
]


Note, that this is a version, that is not available yet for the download, 
since it is being updated. Also, the VERSION number and DATE are 
values taken from the RM-Asset Subversion repository.


Anybody knows what happened to the license page Carl originally kept 
at

http://www.rebol.com/r3/rsl.html

? Another question: do you miss any other info in the header?

Seems ok.
Mayby a link to the page with the changes list ?

but not in the header.

I think the timestamp needs to be more accurate :-)

LOL

:-)

Header update:

REBOL [
    title: "R3-GUI"
    file: %r3-gui.r3
    from: "RM-Asset"
    url: http://www.rm-asset.com/code/downloads/
    history: http://www.rm-asset.com/code/level1/r3-gui/
    license: http://www.rebol.com/r3/rsl.html
    version: 1917
    date: 25-Feb-2011/17:50:30.907555
    purpose: "REBOL 3 GUI module"
]

nice !