World: r3wp

Ladislav - let's not just take it personally :-) For me, and as you 
can see, it is a good experience to experiment with the GUI, as I 
am gaining some internals knowledge. I published the tickets for 
RMA team to consider the consequences, and it is up to you, to react 
accordingly. So - if you guys feel that it is ok, then just dismiss 
the ticket, ad the comment there, and it will server for future GUI 
users as a knowledge base, that's all ...

pekr, short story: you want the OPTIONS word in the layout block 
to be FACETS instead?

- style/options does NOT clearly define, what options user can set 
in dialect options block

 - yes, I wrote that above, style/options specify just the inline 
 options (different context). Since you did not get that, what you 
 would need instead would be to rename them to style/inline-options?

Henrik - short answer - I would like to have it aligned, but - the 
naming is tricky, as I like dialect level options word. Hence my 
second proposition was to rename face/options to face/inline-option, 
but that stil does not describe, that dialect level options "maps" 
to facets ... So so far I am not sure, how to resolve this, I just 
pointed it out ...

This is part of Carl's original design and I imagine that he made 
the idea of "slots" as you call it, so there is a simple way to map 
grouped areas of code to faces, when they are created. Note in the 
source, the definition of a style and a face are right next to eachother. 
So it becomes "how do I create a face from a model of a face, as 
quickly and easily as possible?"

The source is gui-object.r3

What Ladislav proposes is interesting, because it leads my thoughts 
even further, and then my concepts probably break anyway :-) Imagine:

style [
options: ; renamed facets
inline-options:
]


Because then writing "button "OK" options [field: value]" could lead 
users to think, that they are directly setting facets (options, if 
renamed), which is not the case either, as there is an abstraction 
in between the options and its mapping to facets. Besides that I 
think, that Carl would surely not like to give-up on facets name 
(although for me as non-englishman) the word has not meaning, although 
I know it exists in vocabulary ...

So, what he does is create an object that contains "slots" that are 
relevant to the style, and then another object with "slots" that 
are relevant to the face.

But, otherwise, I do not see any urgent need to do any renaming, 
since in button 50x20, hardly anybody would have any trouble understanding, 
that the 50x20 value is an option user is allowed to specify, similarly, 
as any option in the Options block...

slots, fields, attributes, parameters, options ... so many words 
to choose from :-)

Yes, no problem if explained - just my thought chain was - how is 
that I can see some values being specified in an options block in 
a dialect level, which I can't see defined in style/options? That 
is all. If documented, maybe no confusion is going to happen. And 
maybe - not all ppl will think the way I was ...

You named them "slots" first, so that was the word I use, but the 
words you use there are distinctly different. because this is an 
attempt at creating a sane interface for the face. In VID, you didn't 
have that. There was one single object and it was flat, and therefore 
could become large.

IMHO, if OPTIONS in layout were to go, I would replace it with WITH.

the WITH word was used before, but, I guess, that Carl found the 
OPTIONS word more acceptable, otherwise he would have continued to 
use the WITH word, in my opinion.

IIRC, I recomended the word OPTIONS to Carl back then :-¨)

Then OPTIONS in the style object should perhaps be ARGS or PARAMETERS.

args, params .... you can write your thoughts to the CC ticket, if 
you like. I expect it staying the way it is though :-)

btw - any new release around the corner?

Today

reactors have ARGS too

I would not mind, if style/options would be renamed to args or params. 
And if it will unify with reactors, then - why not? I know that other 
pov might be, that those really options, just inlined. So - you can 
have RMA voting, as now you imo clearly understand, why I had the 
problem with the recent naming. Maybe you will decide that it is 
fine as it is, it's your GUI after all :-)

It depends. I'm sure that everyone is interested in new names (that 
make sense) that take less typing. :-)

rebols - obsessed with the naming being right :-)

ARGS and PARAMS are ugly abbreviations of technical words. If the 
problem is that OPTIONS do not map directly to options in the face, 
it seems that WITH was the better name :-)

USING comes to mind too, but then WITH is probably nicer, and "compatible" 
with VID :-)

release date: Cyphre will not be available to commit a new release, 
and some scroller, etc. changes are on the way, so, the release will 
happen on Monday or Tuesday

naming: we have to be mindful with reactor names as well, because 
they exist on the same level as OPTIONS.

Is drawing supported in recent GUI? I tried simple:

>> view make gob! [draw: [circle 100x100 30]]
** Script error: expected command! not circle
** Where: show-native show view
** Near: show-native gob

it should be, otherwise you couldn't use the GUI at all

try removing the "30"

it does not work either ...

I am trying to fix the drawing style, which is not complicated, but 
does not display anything. There might be problem in following init 
code:

	actors: [
		on-make: [
			if block? drw: face/facets/drawing [
				bind face/gob/draw: copy drw face/facets
			]
		]
	]

Wasn't there a fix to binding draw blocks in the last release?

Pekr, you can't use draw code directly, the dialect must be first 
converted to commands.

I think Cyphre is working on a change to make it easier to use.

OK, cool. Maybe you could incorporate one ticket re Doc style ...

Rebolek - in ticket #1837 you claim, that area-color is no longer, 
supported, but my example shows it is not the case ....

The newest version of R3GUI , where area-color is no longer supported 
hasn't been released yet.

ah, now it makes sense .....

Cyphre isn't very well, so there may be some delay with the release.

I hope he gets better soon. Please pass our my best wishes to him.

our -> on

OK, I am fighting for three weeks with this or that, and I feel like 
giving-up and going to health-leave too ... I should not have played 
a soccer yesterday :-)

A111 was reported to work with the RMA GUI, but under WINE I get 
this:

[kaj-:-Kaj-Portable-PC] ~/Desktop/REBOL-3 $ ./r3-a111-3-1.exe r3-gui.r3
** access error: cannot open: shape reason: "module not found"

The RMA build of A110 works, but when I just move the Hello World 
window around, I quickly get REBOL System Error #1412 "should never 
happen"

This doesn't seem to happen if I load the single GUI file and write 
my own Hello World

And under Windows?

No idea, I don't have that

I got A111 working with r3-gui.r3 under windows, but not with the 
pre-compiled version. I recompiled it from the source.