World: r3wp

options: [
		text-body: [string! block!]
		area-color: [tuple!]
		init-size: [pair!]
		wide: [percent!]
	] 


you may specifiy only one pair for a button - init-size, inlined, 
that is ...

Same here, but I am trying to make it easier for Pekr. Or at least 
what he thinks is easier.

So my proposal is:
remove init-size [pair!] from Options

add [init-width [number!]] and use it for changing the init-size/x 
value only

That's same problem as now.

[button "wiiideeee" 10000] won't make 10000px wide button.

so what

so what's it good for?

its useless, confusing, bad :-)

having such non logical behaviour, then better remove the option 
altogether. Cyphre's proposal is an interim solution, sitll bettter 
than having it the way it is now ...

Can't init-size when specified (especially inline) push out max-size 
in both dimensions if it's larger?

Brianh - that was EXACTLY my idea, and it contradicts nothing ...

From my POV either you accept there was some intention of the style-maker 
to define limits or you have to make own derived style.

Cyphre, so your POV changed from 11:48 where you proposed that init 
code for button should set max-size if user sets size in dialect?

That approach would make sense if there was a good reason for the 
limit, like a larger limit would screw up the draw blocks or something. 
Cyphre, is that the case with the button style?

No, also it is on the style-maker to define what should be done with 
the inline pair! so it depends always on the style implementation 
and not as generic rule.

Yes, but we are not talking about some generic rule, but about button.

Right. So it looks like Pekr wants to be a style maker, but for some 
reason is doing it in the layout block instead of with stylize (or 
whatever it's called)?

The thing is if we implement it for button then Pekr will be shouting 
why it won't work for field etc. ? ;)

Brian, yes, that's my understanding as well.

I want simple things to be simple, yet complex things being possible 
...

So this gets back to a "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's. 
Render unto God that which is God's." argument, even if both are 
Pekr :)

Rebolek - ok, decided - please adjust according to brianH's suggestion 
:-) If init-size exceeds the max size, just adjust the max size, 
easy as that, fixed, not breaking anything :-)

I'm not going to change anything if it means Ladislav's death ;)

:-))))

No, Ladislav object against something else imo, no?

No, it was exactly against this.

He calls it mind reading.

we should change the button init code so it changes max-size if user 
specifies the inline pair!

 - I am against that change, you don't know (not being able to read 
 mind) what is the Max-size user wants to have anyway"


My take is - if the max size is lower than requested size, then let 
be requested size be the max size. What could be the harm? Or do 
you think that in such a case, user could complain, that his button 
does not resize to being even bigger?

I do not expect that every user that will write [button "text" 100x100] 
has studied source or documentation to understand how resizing works 
and what max-size mean, they probably just want to have their button's 
size to be 100x100.

So either the code should set all size to 100x100 or it should throw 
error and not allow setting size like this at all.

nothing else makes sense IMO

agreed.

I think I will survive it ...., I am just "Figting" for the average 
future user ...   :-)

While Cyphre and I are fighting for that same user a few minutes 
later when they need to make a change :)

I don't understand how you can fight for something other than Pekr 
when he just repeated your suggestion.

And skipped over what I wrote earlier, and later.

Ok, so I see only two options here:
1) remove all 'inline pairs' from all the styles definitions

2) define 'generic rule' during the style initialization: max-size 
= max(init-size, max-size)

great,so now we're back to exactly what I wrote half an our earlier 
:)

and the winner is?

and because Ladislav doesn't like #2, we should probably go with 
#1.

if we do #1 we don't solve this case:
button options [init-size: 50x50]

Rebolek - I am not sure Ladislav does not like #2

I would rather hear it from him though. He might have a really good 
reason to choose one or the other.

button options [init-size: 50x50 max-size: 50x50]

solved!

We should remember that one of the goals is to minimize the number 
of times we see sizes specified in layouts though.

Yes, so when we remove that option, we minimize that number to zero.

Rebolek, but every 'average user' will be hit by this no? That's 
the same as the question "why button 50x50 doesn't work?"

Not zero because it can be in the options block as you wrote above.

To be fair, we could say, that if I specify button 5x5, what to do 
then? Should min-size be set to min(init-size, min-size)? What if 
user is an idiot, and sets the size to -5x-5? :-)

I still don't understand the difference between these two:
button 50x50 options [max-size: 50x50]
and
button options [init-size: 50x50 max-size: 50x50]

Cyphre, when somebody's fiddling with options block, they must understand 
at least facets. When writing code like [button 100x100], you do 
not need to know anything about style internals.