World: r3wp

(sorry, don't mean to sound rude...)

No VB, C'#  You tent to start with the object and then using . notation 
you tell it what action to take on it.

Ah of course. Much better this way :)

Rebol you say what you want to do then which object you want to do 
it to lol

As I said on my blog I'm just entering my second week of de-programming 
;-/

.. rebol is like:   VSO = Verb Subject Object
VB, C# is like:   SVO = Subject Verb Object
and Yoda is :  OSV

Yeah your mind get comfortable one way or the other - takes a lot 
of breaking

So actually rebol is less like english in that respect. But actually 
english is crazy. It's better to have the verbs at the front.

Actually rebol has objects and path notation, so you SVO too.
eg.   ctx-text/unlight-text

Yes that's where English is wierd for people to learn English say

Bus Station

Spanish say Station de Autobus 

perhaps i should Rebol in spanish ;-)

If you think it would help :) I let you investigate and report your 
findings :)

:)

Thanks for the help  Anton  brb

no prob

You can use the same kind of notation in REBOL as you would in VB, 
but using / instead of .(dot). It's called path notation in REBOL, 
and is used many places (objects, path types, refinements, etc.). 
Sometimes it's easier or clearer to write things one way or the other.

Also, in VB there is the WITH statement (USING in C# I think). In 
REBOL, you can write your own like this:

with: func [object block] [
    if object [do bind/copy block in object 'self]
]

Hi Gregg, yes I've used it a lot with refinements. Like I said I 
think French or Spanish speakers will think in the same order as 
Rebol ;-\

>> obj: context [val: none prn: does [print val]]
>> with obj [val: 2  prn]
2

Gregg, your code is more complex than it needs to be. Try this:

with: func [object [any-word! object! port!] block [block!]] [
    do bind/copy block object
]


This is unnecessary in R3, where you can use DO IN instead of WITH.

Thanks!

Doesn't work on older versions of REBOL. Support for object came 
more recently.

Object as the known-word arg to BIND.

I might also have done mine the  way I did to support the case when 
an object is NONE. Can't recall for sure.

Henrik: I believe that Rebol does have real inheritance, it's just 
based on protoytpes not classes:

>> a: make object! [b: func[][print "I'm from object a"]]
>> c: make a []
>> c/b
I'm from object a
>> d: make a [e: func [][print "I'm an extension to a"]] 
>> d/e
I'm an extension to a
>> f: make d [b: func [][print "I'm not the one in a"]]
>> f/b
I'm not the one in a

This even gives an inefficent way of extending an object:

>> a: make object! [b: func[][print "I'm from object a"]]
>> a: make a [c: func[][print "My new method"]]
>> a/b
I'm from object a
>> a/c
My new method

Hi All, In a list you have the 'first mylist/picked'  is this not 
available for 'choice' ?

Check   index? face/data.

Actually, there are access functions. So use get-face and set-face.

view layout [
	size 200x300
	ch: choice "one" "two" "three" [
		print [index? face/data mold face/data]
		probe get-face face
	]
]

Mmm.. set-face is not implemented fully. Use this:
	layout [my-choice: choice ...]
	set-face my-choice my-choice/text: "two"
(we have to update the face/text ourselves.)

Hi Anton, sorry for slow rep, just drove to London. Sorry I asked 
the wrong question there. What I was after was the 'index' of the 
the item chosen!

No problem.

Journal of a 'Newbie' by SteveT
-------------------------------------------

Hi all, second week of using Rebol. had to travel to London this 
week so you guy's have had less 'Noise' from me ;-/


Had some good help off Anton/Henrik with regard to trapping key-presses. 
I'm hoping that some of the properties (refinements) missing from 
R2 will be in R3 - things like forcing case..


I'm getting to grips with 'PARSE'  will be great if the proposed 
lecture comes off.


Still struggling with 'BIND' but  I think I've learned enough about 
PARSE, BIND, CONTEXT & DIALECTS, to start using some of these facilities 
in some apps.  Biggest lesson so far this week has been 'Don't use 
it just because it's there!'  Stepping back from some of the things 
I've tried have lead me to simplifying my app rather than achieving 
a complicated solution!

Happy trails...
SteveT

Congrats Steve;  I didn't even look at BIND for, well umm, yet.  
:)   Don't learn too fast or I'll have to think about rewriting http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/art-display-article.r?article=lf019t
 Then again; that article uses Sunanda's rebol.org Mini Wiki (miki) 
feature so feel free to update it.  :)

Hi Brian, that's brilliant !!  I said I wanted to get productive 
with REBOL by the end of January! But I didn't say which January 
- did I ;-/  


Think I'm entering level 5 !!!! I'm definately 'confused from Blackpool' 
 :)

I hope you can see that REBOL has amazing depth :-)

Hi Henrik, sure do! I've found that it's easy to step into one of 
the 'deeper' Rebol pools - say 'dialects' and thrash around not getting 
anything done in a disire to understand. This week I'm trying to 
learn just enough to do what I have on the drawing-board.

Hi all, I couldn't resist!  I just had to dip my toe into VID 3. 
It's like waiting for Christmas ;-) All those goodies! 


I've posted a snipet on my blog.     http://swt1962.spaces.live.com

Regards
SteveT

Some notes for your blog post:

'effects' are now 'options'

 - the idea is here to remove the need for face hacking. Options is 
 a clean, self documentable  way to alter the settings for a specific 
 style. But here, the fact that we can alter the appearance of the 
 style is a bit of a fluke, because we wanted a simple way to test 
 options. Originally it was the idea that altering any such effects 
 parameters directly in your layout would be prohibited; The style 
 would take care of this internally and you'd use specific button 
 types that would then use a specific style. You would use buttons 
 defined through its purpose rather than its appearance. You'd have 
 zero control over the appearance of the button, because that is controlled 
 by the style alone.


I know that sounds a little terrifying, but VID3 is meant to lift 
styling to a whole different level; You don't style every single 
face. You focus on the contents of your UI, and the purpose of each 
element, rather than its appearance and VID3 works out how to display 
it. This is for multiple reasons:


- VID3 can display on other devices than bitmapped displays, such 
as text consoles or vectored output.

- Styling becomes the job of one or more dedicated developers rather 
than the application developer, which standardizes styling. It makes 
it much simpler to build very large applications and it becomes possible 
to switch consistently between different styles, where one won't 
look crappy while another one looks great. They'll work equally well. 
Compare it to VID which is just the Wild West of styling. :-)

- Abstraction will make it possible to identify parts of a user interface, 
such as allowing VID3 to, on its own, find the cancel button in a 
window or automatically put key focus on the correct button for great 
consistency.


So when you, in your user interface design say: "I want a button 
that shows importance", you don't try to make a red button. You could 
use the 'warning-button style (just an example, doesn't exist yet). 
Similarly there will be styles for ok-button, cancel-button, etc. 
They are not called red-button, yellow-button, but are purely purpose 
oriented styles.


So while VID3 may look like just a prettier VID with resizing in 
a one-button example, it's actually a whole different beast. :-)

Thanks Henrik, so VID 3 will expect us to prepare our components 
or have some already prepared that we can then use - a bit like creating 
a'skin'. This is much better than 'hacking' each button or box in 
the middle of your layout. Eg, On my main menu example I could have 
my 'reflected image button' already pre-defined in my stylize section? 
Would you like me to post your clarification on my blog?

Steve - but even with VID2 you could pre-construct your styles by 
'stylize and instantiate it by directing VID to your style, or you 
could stylize it even inline within VID, so that you don't need to 
override specific parts of your button each time ...

Hi Pekr,  I understand that, in Visual Studio I would create my own 
'custom' controls for various lookups or effect - that can be re-used 
through-out. If I am planning a full-blown application I would create 
the same tools. As I read thru the VID User Guide - I'm just playing 
with one-liners etc.

yes. I can't wait how VID3 turns out in that regard :-) We should 
get more interactivity out-of-the-box.

Yep, the development  of VID 3 seems right on track IMO, they (RT) 
don't seem to be falling into the trap of making the program design 
too event-driven (Like - Visual Studio etc) Although I've used it 
for years! I think the event-driven design process is bad. You can 
very easily 'knock-up' an application user interface and it will 
look very pretty - but then you spend twice the time getting the 
'back-end' of the application to work with the front-end!!

I wonder if anyone tried looking into Qt? Seems rather complete. 
KDE 4 uses it. And now Nokia owns it ...

Is that the gui they did for tckl ??

I think not. Qt is fro Trolltech, imo pretty advanced. They have 
also Qtopia version for mobile devices. However - for most simple 
apps View will be just fine ... and small :-)

definitely ;-)

I think VID 3 will be useful for an app I will be doing later this 
year where I want to offer access to data in a consistant interface 
for desktop, web and windows mobile.

how will you solve the web part? Plug-in would be usefull here, wouldn't 
it? :-)