World: r3wp

now it works. :-) very nice, anton

Louis <What is the best way to submit this to RT?>
Add it as an enhancement request to Rambo:
http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/rambo.r

And thanks for testing the code -- glad it worked.......One enhancemnet 
suggestion: you may not need the individual "show face" lines if 
you have a show layout-name at the end.

Anton, your styles are looking better and better!

Thanks... now that people can actually see it. :)

Well, it's now over four and a half years since I began with include 
systems. The first version of the old include system was 17-Feb-2002.

I had another one in between which I didn't release. I think I tried 
to do too much with that one and it got hard to debug.

Sunanda, it has been submitted to rambo. Thanks again!

when working with Vid data structures .. it makes sense to me to 
perhaps to create functions that act on a vid widget to be associated 
with that widget

So, if you have a complex large program, you can keep all the functions 
that act upon/with a widget's data all in one place.

do you mean like creating a style and specifiying the with block?

view layout [
	style button button with [
		print-lbl: func [][print self/text]
	]
	button "do" [face/print-lbl]
]

(don't need the "self/" by the way).

I know it was just to make it explicit.

;-)

ok

Yes.

and no.

Your example uses a style ...

You might have multiple functions that operate on the widget and 
you want to hide them as a type of context inside the widget

you don't need to make a style for the with block.  I just did this 
cause I thought you meant that you want the functions to be applied 
to a broad set of gadgets.  this works directly:

view layout [
	button "do" [face/print-lbl]  with [
		print-lbl: func [][print self/text]
	]
]

Hmm.  Interesting.

funny you didn't know about this after so many years of using REBOL 
!

are these functions exposed to the global context?

nope.

well.. I'm not too familiar with vid

Just know enough to get along .. most of the time!

basically the with block is like when you supply a block to something 
like make face! []

or more specifically the call to make-face/spec

so, without the with they become anonymous functions

If the 'with isn't there, it would just be considered the alt-action 
block for the button.

does Glayout use the same syntax ?

yes, I am a slavemaster to VID.

I harness VID and let it layout like it should.  ;-)

you could almost say I abuse it  ;-) hehe

right now I am plugging liquid directly within.  yet another layer 
of abuse... but it works.

actually, liquid is currently so tight, its trying to update the 
gadget before its even displayed...

cause it receives an event during the init.

is there a sure-fired way to know if a face is currently shown?  
I don't remember from the top of my head... anyone?

would checking for none? parent-face be sufficient?

viewed?

I don't see that as being a word within the face.  could it be show?

I mean, could it be the attribute:  'face/show?

>> help viewed?
USAGE:
    VIEWED? face

DESCRIPTION:
     Returns TRUE if face is displayed.
     VIEWED? is a function value.

ARGUMENTS:
     face -- (Type: object)

ahhh...  sourcing viewed? and then find-window, I can say that it 
all relies on parent-face being set... just what I tought...

Maxim, you will need to check face/show? for this face and every 
parent up to the window. Then... umm... you might have to check the 
window differently, see if it it's in the screen-face/pane.

so face/show? becomes true once its been shown at least once?

yes, find-window will tell me if the panes/window its in is currently 
opened.

Yes. Hiding can be done with:
face/show?: false
show face/parent-face

Ah.. but you will basically need to make a function similar to find-window 
in order to be sure everything's ok.

Yes, you will need to check if parent-face is none. face/parent-face 
is only set the first time a face is shown.

yeah... but it never gets cleared... that's one of my pet peeves 
about view/face.