[REBOL] Re: questions about VID and parse.
From: gscottjones:mchsi at: 10-Mar-2002 16:42
From: "Bansard Stephane"
>...
> Thanks a lot for your fully functional example. This way i can progress!
> >[...]
> > a: ["first" "second"]
> > layout-data: copy []
> > foreach datum a [
> > append layout-data [text]
> > append layout-data datum
> > ]
> > view layout layout-data
>
> So basically, I have to create a block like
> [text "item1" text "item2" text "item3], right?
> It seems there is not way to write a function to avoid rebuilding a new
list.
Hi, Stephane,
Perhaps I have inadvertantly caused some confusion. Perhaps I do not
exactly understand the functionality that you seek. Communications can be
so fragile at times.
As you may well know, /View is REBOL's gui extension. Although /View can be
programmed directly, most prefer to use the dialect extension VID (video
interface dialect). A block of interface description language is presented
to the layout command, which can interpret the block into a form presentable
for the view command. Hence, one frequently will use the following sequence
for a quick layout:
view layout [
text "Hello"
text "Goodbye"
]
The block (bracketed text) is presented to 'layout which then digests the
dialect for use by 'view. Alternatively, some let 'layout process the block
and later present the information to 'view:
lo: layout [
text "Hello"
text "Goodbye"
]
view lo
When you asked your question earlier, I made some assumptions, which is
always very hazardous. I assumed that you were needing a way to present
dynamically generated data in a window as in text-type format (aka a type of
label). My simplisitic method allowed for a block of text values to then be
laid out in a VID dialect block that is then presentable for 'layout.
Does this make sense?
If you simply need to format labels in a window and already know the labels,
I would recommend one of the static methods mentioned herein. However, if
you don't know what the labels are in advance, then consider using some
variation on the theme that I gave in the last email.
Have I caused more confusion?
Regards,
--Scott Jones
