World: r3wp

main: layout [] 
append main/pane [ something ]
view main

does not work..hehe ;-) any hints? its sooo simple probably..

I would do it this way ... just try to probe main, it seems to be 
some whole VID :-)

Sunanda, thanks for the link. Never found a tool where I could use 
a dialect to create a flow-chart.

main: make face [pane: copy []]
append main/pane make face [text: "hello"]
view main

that is View without VID .... maybe it could be somehow "simplified", 
using VID ...

append main/pane make face layout [button "OK" [print "ok"]]

you get the idea ...

aaa wait... its the 'make face that needs to go inside a layout ofcourse...

yes yes.. i think thats it ;-) I forgot to do a make face of the 
bolck..

what block?

'make face

I simply forgot to put make face ..

but its oke now Thanks !

I was just appending..

with no gui ;-)

eh, actually I did not think I could be helpful to you gurus regarding 
rebol coding :-)

haha...

view layout [button  area  face with [init: [] size: 100x100 color: 
navy]]

Anton..intresting.. I see two things I actualy never use in Layouts 
(I mostly use Faces directly) that is the init: [] and 'with

But i actualy like the felixibilty of 'layout function there are 
more ways to combine layout and make face ...intresting if your not 
like to reinvent /vid again ...

But actualy I wonder what the best way is to merge the use of Layout 
together ith 'make face.. Which is eating less overhead?

1) copying it all into a block and append
2) using make face layout inside a layout
3) using a layout with a make face with
??

Hi Rebolinth, there's a compromise between the low-level MAKE FACE 
and the LAYOUT [] approach for single faces called MAKE-FACE. It's 
basically a way to create single faces using the VID style name and 
a spec block for of specifying facets. Of course, MAKE FACE should 
have the lowest overhead, whereas - just as it says - LAYOUT is more 
for describing whole layouts. You may find MAKE-FACE slightly easier 
to create VID-compatble faces without getting into too much detail.

Ah oke thanks for the explanation Christian.. Well Yes im using make 
face far more often in bigger programs/scripts where layout i use 
for the quick build of gui's..

Mmm i have asked this once befor but can someone explain to me when 
to use 'with  ?

When you want to assign facets that you can't assign with the dialect 
or any time you find it easier to assign facets using with than using 
the dialect. ;-)

As ammon said :
	view layout [
		vh1 "The text" 
		vh1 with [text: "The text"]
	]
It's the same.

With is nice i.e. to set the background color of a text style (where 
colors used in the dialect are assigned to font) :

and everything in that block is equivalent to working with an object 
block, so you can put in functions, etc. and all the variables are 
bound to the face

view layout [
	vh1 "Text"  blue
	vh1 "Text" with [color: blue]
]

Also the facet does not need to already exist in the style, it can 
be used to add your own custom ones e.g

 view layout [button "click" with [squid: 3] [alert join "My squid 
 is " face/squid] ]

I'm testing a tab button group with BTN look. What do you think? 
http://www.hmkdesign.dk/tabview.png

the idea is for them to be toggles in a group, where only one of 
them can be selected. then there needs to be an easy method to perform 
some kind of action, such as selecting a mode or changing a layout 
in a pane

http://www.hmkdesign.dk/tabview2.png<-- how they would look selected

view layout [style group-tog tog [print [face/text]] with [related: 
'default] group-tog "Anton" group-tog "Henrik" group-tog "other unpeeled 
vegetables"]

(using the existing TOG style)

anton, that's not the point of it

the point is to have a button group that actually looks like a button 
group

Oh I see.

view layout [style group-tog tog [remove find face/parent-face/pane 
face append face/parent-face/pane face print [face/text]] with

 [related: 'default] across space -5 group-tog "Anton" group-tog "Henrik" 
 group-tog "vegetables"]

not good enough :-)

what's missing ?

well, first of all it's easy to tell that it's just buttons layered 
over eachother

which makes it look crude and simple and unprofessional

I like the BTN style, but it's underused in VID for other applications, 
such as a tab button group

Change the space -5 to -2 and it looks better.

second, I use pane switching a lot and it's a hassle to write your 
own routines for that all the time. it should be much simpler.

Just write a couple of functions, face-to-front and face-to-back 
and you can reuse them many times.

that's not the point either...

The point is that it should be easy for everyone to do this. VID 
does not offer a standardized way to do this and you need to study 
how to switch layouts in panes, etc. It should work out of the box