World: r3wp

should basically work loke closing on close-button - ah, i to late 
:)

what, ESC? :-) cool!

(you'll use unview/only, or unview/all ... whatever you need)

^(esc) works too

mroe readable maybe

*more

hmm, when I call quit from lay1, I get back to lay2, instead of quitting 
:-)

Hu? And you did not redefine quit?

no ....

I will try to shorten my example ....

Volker, it playing images wasn't my idea at the time. It's cool though.

try following?

lay1: layout [f: field [view lay2] btn "Quit" [quit]]
lay2: layout [text "just a try" btn "Return" [view lay1 focus f]]

view lay1

probe :quit  ; == native

enter something in the field, press enter ... press Return on second 
dialog, press Quit on first one - instead of quitting rebol, you 
will be brought once again to lay2

you are right...

so is that a bug or what?

interesting.

its the first time i see quit not quit. IMHO a bug.

Gabriele is guru of modal system ... hey Gab, what's happening here? 
Can I twist even so short code or is that a bug? :-)

I will RAMBO it ....

looks like a bug to me. try to make the example smaller first.

smaller? :-)

ok, will remove text ;-)

wanted to ask that too.. ;) removing focus?

maybe focus is the cause? :-)

They are not modal windows. But the modal handling has changed in 
wake-event, so maybe the problem is there.

focus does that ...

in RAMBO ...

going home, later ...

cu Pekr

Type something in the box, press enter, click return - and unfocus 
the field (like clicking on the window) and it shows lay2 again - 
looks like it's just viewing lay2 when the field is unfocused - which 
is before the button is clicked, right?

good observation. when i add a 'print in the quit-button, it shows 
that action is never called. so no quit too.

When a field is dirty? and you click on another button the action 
of the field is done. This is a side effect of system/view/screen-face/feel/event-funcs/1

I did not know View 1.3 will not work with W95??? I noticed change 
of filesystem accessor function calls, but I thought those will be 
somehow called on newer systems only. Lotsa of W95 machines still 
around. I wonder if W98 is affected too?

I have found Win95 machines to be kinda rare, but 98 and 98se to 
be pretty common - 95 seems to only be used on machines without Internet 
access in my experience.

I think RT could afford to drop support for Win95

or, leave 1.2 for Win95

A lot ot other companies have. Support for Adobe Reader left off 
at 5.0.5, Java at 1.3.1_11, etc. Even 98 is losing support, although 
98se still seems to be there for now.

Petr: romano's right, see also my answer to ticket.

i think Carl tested 1.3 on 98. i haven't though, so i'm just guessing 
it still works there :)

the interesting thing with Pekrs snippet is: yes, that action is 
done. but usually the dirty-action is done and then the button-action. 
in this case its not. due to the switching in the layout.

lay1: layout [f: field [
		probe "Dirty!"
		;view lay2
	] btn "Quit" [probe "Bye?"]]
lay2: layout [text "just a try" btn "Return" [view lay1 focus f]]
view lay1

enable the 'view and the quit-button is not called. Not sure if thats 
buggy enough to be a bug thought.

shouldn't the 'run function be part of /view.  Looks like it requires 
a license to be used.

Gabriele: I don't understand what Romano says. As a average scripter, 
I really don't care about some dirty fields or other dependencies. 
From code provided, it is clearly a bug, so - fix it.

'Run is not enabled in View.  It only works in IOS.

Gabriele - just looked at your fix - I can't consider it being a 
fix. It is like suggesting HTML coder to change something in DOM 
level.

It is like VID list style - the worst ever - you work with exposed 
variables you don't have normally the chance to know about (from 
the VID style perspective pov) - I consider it being very bad design, 
wrong ecapsulation.

I don't understand what is 'dirty's purpose, but imo clicking Quit 
button, which clearly maps to native 'quit function, should simply 
quit, nothing else whatever else you have set. The only case would 
be, if I would put some sensor transparent face upon button to catch 
events, or something like that.