World: r3wp

in glayout I had a lot of these issues to manage, and generally, 
I always had some part of the setup func which would normalize all 
the values to layout function expected behaviour.


this allowed voluntary programmatic side-effects, but not thru the 
layout dialect.


for example, all sizing values where clipped to be at least as large 
as min-size as the first step.

I hate gui errors .. I'd rather have a screwed up display

I don't think anyone is arguing that Graham, but I would rather see 
an error myself than to have my users see a screwed up display.

Maybe there should be an option to log errors somewhere?

I'm trying to change the font color and size in a button, and in 
a field ... need some help !

Something like this?


view layout [button "Help" with [font: [size: 16 colors/1: 255.0.0]]]

yes, but not working with r3

Doh! I should pay attention to the group name. :-\ Must be time to 
sleep.

Never mind, from my side, I'm just getting up !

you need to make new styles to do this.

A small note:

I have ran the latest RE-GUI and the examples. I have see that when 
the CHECK is off the "v" is still visible but greyed.

In GUI language I have seen the GREYED "v" means BOTH "true" and 
"false".

Example: you want to filter in a database which customers are active, 
you set it to true,  which are inactive, you set it to false (nothing 
visible). You want both true and false the you have a third state: 
the grayed V.

Yes, that's possible to implement, there probably was no need for 
yet.

I have problem accepting result of examples:

15, 23, 24, 25, 26, and I stop here, probably many others ...


The problem I see is,that I don''t want elements to jump during resizing 
the way it does. Please try form example 15. IMO if we don't support 
scaling, the text and its spacing should not change at all. I would 
expect panel being enlarged, but all it does is the panel moves down, 
and GUI creates space between the header text and the consecutive 
text.


Also - look at example 26 - why the last line of boxes is shifted 
down the window from all the rest of the boxes?

And you thought, I might like following coder, right? :-)

 view [hpanel [button button button] options [box-model: 'frame]]

If we can't come up with something better (which is beyond my imagination 
and the "proper" way would require to come up with xy alternate names 
for all panel/group combinations), I am definitely at least not sure 
about the facet (property) name. Does drawing the surounding frame 
(or simply parametrisation of one of style visual) has anything to 
do with the term "box model"?


I would probably use draw-mode name, but not sure it would not be 
confused with draw frames then? What do you think? Forget the syntax, 
we can't do any better here imo, but what about the name?

Align examples - I don't understand the align+halign at all. Why 
the vertical coordinates of red and blue boxes are reversed?

Also - please use halign instead of allignt, to be consistent with 
hpanel, vpanel, etc. It has imo no sense to name one property valign, 
and the other one align.

as some things might get lost in the discussion, I am really thinking 
about putting some of above stuff into CC. Please add Rebolek the 
right to edit tickets status.

Panel example #35 - I just wonder, how many ppl will feel lost the 
same way as I feel. The naming terms in regards to results are difficult 
for me to resolve. As for alignment, there is several way of how 
to name things:

halign, valing


left , right, center (vleft, vright, vcenter, hleft, hright, hcenter)


left, right, center, top, middle, bottom (or the corner alignment 
-  top-left, top-right, buttom-left, bottom-right - if those would 
be used, I would immediatelly understand it)


But - let's try to think about it a bit - we have some alignements 
in various GUI levels. If possible, let's stay consistent (e.g. it 
is enough that low-level text handling uses MS Word like terms, which 
don't relate to the rest of the gui)

re 15) text-resizing was enabled, so DOC-browser can render documents 
properly, but it seems that it doesn't sem max-size properly. I will 
check it.

ALIGN, VALIGN - this is same naming as in HTML, so you can expect 
most people be familiar with it.

box-model facet name - what about FRAME? name: none, frame: 'simple, 
frame: 'fillet etc

frame name works better for me than box-model, although it suggests 
a bit - frame - yes or no? frame-type would be more descriptive, 
but longer. I would be ok with frame, frame-type (mode), draw-mode 
- all better than box-mode imo ....

as for alignment - from html I do remember align="left | right | 
center" .....

I would go for EDGE, like VID, if you are to implement such a feature.

alignemnt - really - go to example #35, write down all variants on 
paper, forget the visual representation you are provided with, and 
just draw it on the paper out from your head. I bet you will make 
a mistake. And align + valign is not understandable for me at all 
....

Henrik - whatever name might work. As for EDGE - this is yet another 
term though. EDGE was regular facet in VID though, and in R3 it is 
replaced by BORDER, no?

I think the edge/frame/border usage is a little confusing. EDGE was 
a standard feature for every face in VID and it was fixed how it 
worked. In R3, an edge would be implemented on the DRAW level and 
could basically mean anything, including what it means in relation 
to the box model. This is why I'm still advocating a special FRAME 
style, which in *one* place, settles the meaning and the appearance.


Furthermore, a FRAME could be required for any type of face, be it 
a form with many fields, a compound of faces or groups of compounds 
of faces, which need to be surrounded by a pixel accurate frame, 
like in the example below, which I had trouble defining properly, 
when I experimented with skinning:

http://94.145.78.91/files/r3/gui/162.png


I had problems with it, because it had to be part of COMPOUND, and 
yet, certain COMPOUNDs would not have a frame and certain other panel 
types would also require the frame, but not be a compound. It is 
just much simpler to have it in a separate style.

but how would you define, what layout engine should be used? We have 
two, no? panel, and group ... and their respective vertical vs horizontal 
variants ...

The question is, if we can please all users. Some will like borderless, 
backgroundless clean style. Some might want frame around the panel, 
and I can imagine users wanting just a bit different color or gradient 
to distinguish the panel from the surrounding.

#[[Pekr

Does drawing the surounding frame (or simply parametrisation of one 
of style visual) has anything to do with the term "box model"?

Pekr]] - surely it does, the box model specifies that, and other 
properties

#[[Pekr
frame name works better for me than box-model

Pekr]] - it does not for us, since that way, you would be limited 
only to one of the box-model aspects

Ladislav - I know, but imagine user will just want above mentioned 
variant - panel, which will be distinguished by a bit brighter bg 
color, not a drawn frame.

Pekr, by only allowing a single face (with any number of subfaces) 
inside such a frame style, layout would not be an issue.

What do you mean by box model aspects? margin, border, padding, content?

Henrik - aha, so you mean that FRAME would be special face type allowing 
to create various surroudings upone certain face? So that it would 
containt panel, or group? That might work ...

But of course then - we have altready those facilities for all faces 
- a box model, where's the space to draw any borders,etc. Well, we 
could say then, that FRAME is special decorative kind of style. The 
question is, if it would not be overused by uesrs, putting even buttons 
inside of FRAME, to have a decoration? :-)

Pekr, "That might work" - precisely. :-)

You don't need special enclosing face if you can use box-model for 
it and draw in the border.

Ladislav - box model/frame is not much of an issue for me. I think 
that worse problem for me is how currently resizing is behaving in 
above mentioned styles, and all that align examples and its naming 
- very confusing.

align and valign are pretty standard names if you've ever seen HTML, 
what's so confusing about them?

#[[Pekr
And align + valign is not understandable for me at all ....

Pekr]] - right you are, you should see the code to understand what 
the text means. In short, it means, that the HALIGN and VALIGN properties 
are set somehow, instead of using the default values, that are 'LEFT 
+ 'TOP

everything. Have YOU ever seen  html?

as I said - in html align = left | right | center ...

can you please explain to me, why the align + valign aligns left 
red box vertically in reverse position than signle align?

err, I meant: "ALIGN and VALIGN are set somehow, instead of using 
the default LEFT + TOP setting"

ALIGN + VALIGN does nothing

their values do

aha, now I look into the code - makes much more sense now. Then it 
is about the description in the demo, which confused me

ALIGN can be: LEFT CENTER RIGHT