World: r3wp

I'm not sure any of that makes sense. Sorry. :-)

Progress is even *less* compatible with scrollbar and would take 
even more code to fit into scrollbar.

My opinion is, that design wise - scroller could be just progress 
+ 2 arrow buttons. And that is also where I am not sure about your 
aproach. It is clearly visible, that you are not using compound styles? 
Why scroller has different arrows from arrow-button?

scroller could be just progress + 2 arrow buttons

 - and that won't happen, because it's an inflexible solution, when 
 we start working more seriously on the skin, where each arrow will 
 likely have individual draw blocks customized for each direction. 
 It only works in simple GUIs like VID, where the appearance is just 
 a pixel edge and some flat shading. In that sense, it might make 
 sense to have a separate arrow style, but it won't work here.

well, the fact is, that we have separate arrow-button, no?

... and it has to solve the shadows anyway ....

view [progress 50% slider scroller] - try this code to see what I 
mean ... and try the same code in Carl's gui. What is wrong with 
his scroller? It looked much better.

we have an arrow style?

yes :-)

I don't see it. What's the name?

view [arrow-button]

I see. But the result is the same. You are too focused on the appearance.

If we don't reuse the code, then I wonder, if we have not failed 
design wise. Because then it leads to reimplementation of arrows 
for each particular style, and then no wonder that we are in a messy 
situation, if each style uses different arrows?

We reuse the code when it makes sense. In this case it doesn't necessarily 
make sense, because an arrow is a rectangular button with a particular 
draw block. There is no gain in trying to cram it into the scroller 
style, because skin-wise you will need to adjust it anyway, which 
is more code. That may not be the case in the finished scroller style.

ergh... delete the last sentence.

ok, then appearance wise, it should use identical draw blocks? E.g. 
in Windows apps, arrow is arrow, being it part of drop-down, spinner, 
scrollbar - still the same style?

it should use identical draw blocks
 - you can't count on that.

I don't necessarily want styles being somehow magically compound, 
if the only thing you need is to use a draw block, and in fact "integrating" 
multiple styles together is even beyond my imagination technically 
wise, but I request identical visual representation ....

OK, different qeustion - how is materials influencing draw block? 
only via parameters?

identical representation may not make sense, but again, you are probably 
used to only using Windows.

Because I am thinking into looking into Carl's scroller, trying to 
replace RMA's draw block. I wonder, if it could break because of 
material system, or would it work?

In the draw block, materials are gradients and colors, so they are 
only color and gradient parameters to draw primitives.

Hmm, I don't have Carl's styles available :-(, only some GUI related 
code. I wonder if it was ever available.

But - technically wise I just might remove draw block (replace it 
with zero or minimal code), and style would still work? So free to 
play whatever the way I like with the style visual representation?

it should work. I would try replacing each part with simple colored 
boxes, so you know where the boundaries are.

good tip, thanks ....

what is viewport-box? Something related to the box model?

hmm, viewport-box, margin-box, padding-box, border-box. It seems 
the viewport-box is the total outer bounding box for the face ....

Yes, these are the boxmodel attributes, as named in the recent versions 
of the R3 GUI

Cyphre promised to update the documentation for the boxmodel, as 
a part of the upcoming update.

The updated version of the %r3-gui.r3 currently looks as follows:

REBOL [
    title: "R3-GUI"
    from: "RM-Asset"
    license: http://www.rebol.com/r3/rsl.html
    version: 1917
    date: 25-Feb-2011/17:50:30.907555
]


Note, that this is a version, that is not available yet for the download, 
since it is being updated. Also, the VERSION number and DATE are 
values taken from the RM-Asset Subversion repository.


Anybody knows what happened to the license page Carl originally kept 
at

http://www.rebol.com/r3/rsl.html

? Another question: do you miss any other info in the header?

Seems ok.
Mayby a link to the page with the changes list ?

but not in the header.

I think the timestamp needs to be more accurate :-)

LOL

:-)

Header update:

REBOL [
    title: "R3-GUI"
    file: %r3-gui.r3
    from: "RM-Asset"
    url: http://www.rm-asset.com/code/downloads/
    history: http://www.rm-asset.com/code/level1/r3-gui/
    license: http://www.rebol.com/r3/rsl.html
    version: 1917
    date: 25-Feb-2011/17:50:30.907555
    purpose: "REBOL 3 GUI module"
]

nice !

jocko - your demo is more complete than mine - I ported only something 
like 60% of demos. I will stop working on mine version from now on.

but please include the fix to the stack overflow, to ease some console 
testing ...

Don't stop, I hope some help from you to make the draw examples work

Notice, see

    history: http://www.rm-asset.com/code/level1/r3-gui/


, that there are other changes, and more important, than just the 
correction of the SHOW-NATIVE definition

Is this fix mentioned in the tickets you put ?

I did not read them up to now, I wanted to correct quickly the version 
which used an out of date r3-gui file.

For the other fixes, I will introduce them later (Or you, if you 
want). And I will take some time to make the other examples work, 
out of RMA documentation.

Ladislav, thanks, I was just explaining that we need to introduce 
the other changes from the RMA doc ... it may take some time, and 
I have not so much.

You already have the other fixes as listed in the history page, if 
you updated to the latest public version of the %r3-gui.r3

jocko, the fix is in view-show.r


; this is a run-once-code, i.e. it causes problems when LOAD-GUI 
is run twice
;show-native: :show

; this is a way how it can be corrected:
if command? :show [show-native: :show]

the two fixes that I put in my demo file are on the doc style, and 
on the request function

I do not think that they are working in the public version

yes, they are newer than the last public version

Pekr - will put it next time