World: r3wp

IMHO VIEW should be able to view any datatype, but that is something 
we'll look at when rewriting it.

What I want to do is to make a box with an Image as borer pen. Not 
able to do it with R2 nor R3 (see 'View group).

borer=border

DideC: to progress, please use the solution I outlined: http://www.rebol.com/r3/docs/view/gobs.html#section-13
- as you can see, it was supposed to work under Carl's GUI, but it 
somehow broke with further developments ...

Henrik: I get crashes of R3 when doing following:

>> do %r3-gui.r3

>> do %panels-21.r3 ; close a window, and do the same example again 
- it takes 2-3 runs to crash the R3

Crashes = R3 process disappears?

exactly ...

Win Vista, 32-bit. RMA A110 build, tried with downloaded and also 
on-line r3-gui.r3 populated using load-gui function. Do the script 
once, press some button, close it, do the script the second time, 
press the button - crash ...

stack problem, I suppose.

when I close the window, I expect all objects do exist defined in 
the guie structure? The question is, what does consecutive run of 
the script do to the system then :-)

That is a problem that Ladislav, Cyphre and Bolek are attempting 
to clarify and fix right now.

It seems that the memory can't be recalled back. I just watch task 
list, and I can see that running R3 takes some 2.4 MB, doing an %R3-gui.r3 
goes to some 4.8 MB, doing %panels-21.r3 starts at 7.9, but slowly 
grows to 8.8 MB, pressing some buttons/tabbing/resizing, grows the 
memory consumption to 11.2MB (why? ), closing the window does not 
return the memory back (maybe correct, as the window is just "hidden", 
but still interanlly exists?)


I wonder, if there would be any possibility to "unload" window (layout) 
and/or even to unload the gui?

Is that a resizing bug? I tried to lower the Y size of panels-21.r3 
test window, and got following:

http://xidys.com/rebol/resizing-bug.jpg

Why some buttons got thinner?

so, what? you think, that the buttons are too small?

no, just that on the left-top, and bottom-right are OK, but left-down 
and top-right are thinner ...

And botton-left is vpanel, and top-right is hpanel style ... so I 
wonder how it is calculated :-) If you say it is OK, then it is OK, 
it was just an observation ....

unload" window (layout)" - possibly just by setting the window face 
to NONE. Most of the time, you don't want to do that, so I don't 
think any special functions are needed.

Henrik: OK, noted ...

Pekr, thinner buttons: Good catch. I'm not sure why the height would 
be different for VPANEL and HPANEL, but IMHO, they should not be 
different for any reason.

of course there could be different cell heights for VPANEL and HPANEL 
that I did not notice.

Ok, I see now what it means. That looks like correct behavior to 
me, as you are in the child VPANELs adjusting the vertical min/max 
size of the button. The demo inadvertently uses both child VPANELs 
to define the maximum vertical sizes of the parent VPANEL cells. 
This overlaps the resizing behavior of the child VPANELs, so I can't 
tell from this test, what is causing the buttons to be squashed. 
A child HPANEL that takes up the entire vertical size of the parent 
VPANEL should display identical behavior to a child VPANEL.

Just tested it, and it does, so behavior is correct.

On a side-note: Faces like buttons should not have any flexibility 
in the vertical size. That makes the UI less consistent to look at. 
The smaller the elements are in a direction, the less you want them 
to resize. A horizontal SPLITTER face or a horizontal BAR does not 
resize in its vertical direction.

My problem : solved in A96 by doing 'load-gui first !

Just tested it, and it does, so behavior is correct.

 - Henrik, I don't like any cryptic explanations to what apparently 
 looks like buggy behaviour?

If I read your above explanations, I feel completly lost :-)

The parent "vpanel2" contains 2x vpanel, 2x hpanel. And one of vpanels 
and one of hpanels gets the Y size of button stretched ...

Is there any "debugging" mode, which would allow panel cells being 
displayed? (something as chess-board, or grid-lines, to see the boundaries?)

Sorry, I mistook the third panel for a VPANEL, but that just simplifies 
the explanation that this is not a bug:


1. The button can vertically resize, as its min/max size is not the 
same. This is correct behavior according to the specs of the style. 
This is not the same as saying that this is esthetically sensible 
behavior in the button style.

2. The panel in which the buttons reside can also resize vertically, 
because the button can resize vertically. This is correct behavior.

3. The parent VPANEL, when resized vertically, can resize its inner 
faces to their limits, like an accordion. The limits are defined 
by min/max size. The second and the third panel, which both display 
squashed buttons do this, because their vertical size define the 
vertical size of the two cells of the parent VPANEL. This is correct 
behavior.


To get rid of the problem the button should have vertical min/max 
size being the same. That's all.

A simpler way to show exactly the same behavior is:

view [vpanel 2 [hpanel [button "1" button "2" button "3"]]]

btw: +1 for not allowing buttons being vertically resized as a default 
:-)

btw - I seem to have problem understanding v/h group/panel wrapping, 
when accompanied with integers:

view [hgroup 2 [button "1" button "2" button "3"]]

... I would expect button 3 to be placed under button 1?

possibly a bug, but I don't know. in the code, I can see that HGROUP 
does not use the BREAK-AFTER integer for anything.

while HPANEL does.

vgroup/hgroup are ignoring the wrapping

yes, correct.

to wrap lines in groups, you need to use the RETURN keyword

(documented)

ok, then behavior for HGROUP and VGROUP is also correct.

why is it so? I thought that RETRUN might be here to actually force 
the wrap, but not a requirement, when integer specifying the wrapping 
column/row is specified as part of vgroup/hgroup specification? OK, 
I'll wait for docs to see the explanation ....

force wrap
 - not for HPANEL- there no "wrap forcing" works

while for the HGROUP, you need to use RETURN to wrap lines

That is the difference between HGROUP and HPANEL.

I thought that the difference is in the visuals. OK, so if hgroup 
wrapping is supposed to be done using RETURN keyword, what is the 
purpose of following code?

view [hgroup 2 [button "1" button "2" button "3"]] 


Or is that some left-over from previous implementations, and "hgroup 
2" does not make sense?

the integer is accepted as an option for VGROUP/HGROUP. perhaps that 
is a bug.

I am curious about the docs, as I miss main purpose in difference 
between panel and group. In the past, IIRC, panel and group differed 
visually, and also in default layout orientation, and if it would 
be the case, I don't understand, why group differs in using RETURN 
keyword instead of using integer as an option ...

Well, it's evident from what you say at the end. The flow control 
is the difference between the two. It makes more sense to have two 
general purpose types of mechanisms for grouping faces and afterwards, 
make derivative styles for particular appearances.

OK, so the option parameter of group styles is an ommision?

yes, it does not appear to be used.

iew [hgroup 2 [button 
1" button "2" button "3"]]" - where did you find that?

It is most probably an old version