World: r3wp

rebol as a (windows/whatever) service would be nice - if it was stable 
enough.

Ho that remember i noticed in VID2  a surprising bug ....

when you cascade the below and across

Mental framework is a system design term. Synapses are in the implementation 
phase :)

for example : view layout [ below img img across img img return img 
img below img return and so on

buzzwords aside - it will be interesting to see what Carl comes up 
with next time he surfaces :)

ICarii - as for DLLs - maybe DLL interface will not be present in 
R3 as we know it. Well, most wrappers will not probably work out 
of the box. IIRC Carl was thinking making DLL interface just a plug-in. 
Plug-in interfaces API is done from some 80%, just not exposed yet 
...

that should renderize 1 image then the second on the lower then block 
of 4 images in sqaure  the below an image then a secon column same 
way

I was suprised to see that I don't really renderize that

that's the origin reset bug isnt it shad?

yeah somthing like that  on the very ast colum the last images are 
inserted below the first column and not on the continuation of the 
4th columb

column ...

so to solve that i used fixed position with "at"

Wait, that would be in mezzanine code, the layout function - I am 
familiar with that function. Send me some test code that demonstrates 
the bug and we should be able to fix it.

The fix would make it into the next R2 release.

BrianH, notify Anton as well. I know he published some heavy patches 
to layout in DevBase.

Brian: sure, user defined types are interesting features, but do 
you seriously think that such low-level feature would be implemented 
(and finished) before 2010 if high-level features like VID take precedence 
? What would be the next priority, View's Desktop ? Looking at how 
R3 has evolved since the first alpha in june 2007, I see that only 
very few core vital features have been finished, like ports, and 
the rest of the time has been spent on less important things like 
unicode support (which is a *very* valuable addition, but not vital, 
because anyone can implement it at mezz level if required). Features 
that nobody, except Carl, can add to the language (because it's closed) 
like modules, threading, rebcode, user-types,... are still pending.

that how i told it  you just mix below and accross blocks

We should check to see if the bug still exists with Anton's current 
patches.

Doc: I agree totally.

BrianH here is the working sample that show the bug

view layout [ below btn "1" btn "2" across btn "3" btn "4" return 
btn "5" btn "6" below btn "7" btn "8" return b

tn "9" btn "10" across btn "11" btn "12" return btn "13" btn "14" 
below btn "15" btn "16" ]

that what i love with rebol  an sample is while discusing to pop 
out a bug is so easy to do  ^^

Doc, a lot of the module code is there already, mostly mezzanine 
and a few core changes that have already been done. Rebcode we can 
add ourselves after UDTs are there. Unicode was a lot more important 
than you think, because it required language design changes and had 
deep implications - it had to be done first. I agree that there are 
definitely some low-level things that I would like Carl to focus 
on next, like threading and the changes to the object! semantics 
(this affects modules and nearly everything else). Only then can 
the plugin interface be done, and with plugins come UDTs.

see you have buton 11 below the btn 8 instead of having it below 
the btn 10

expected position should be below the 10 and beside the 4

Got it, the return after the 8 is returning to the point set by the 
first below before the 1.

hum well if it was only a little hum spacing problem I wouldn't  
point at it but why the first column is rendering OK and the column 
with exactly same instructions is not

and where the bug arrive to the top of the mountain is when you add 
a 3rd colum you have the 2 first column rendered OK  and the bug 
show on the 3rd column ...

view layout [ below btn "1" btn "2" across btn "3" btn "4" return 
btn "5" btn "6" below btn "7" btn "8" return b

tn "9" btn "10" across btn "11" btn "12" return btn "13" btn "14" 
below btn "15" btn "16" return btn "17" btn "18"

across btn "19" btn "20" return btn "21" btn "22" below btn "23" 
btn "22" ]

Brian: I agree with you, but Carl seems to be more interested in 
"chasing windmills" than implementing vital core features.

but hum ???

look the 3 column code ... that's freak

It looks like some variable in layout isn't getting set correctly. 
This may be tricky - there may be code out there that depends on 
the broken behavior. R2 is in compatibility mode, you know. We don't 
make breaking changes if they will break too much, or if we do we 
break towards R3 compatibility. Still, this seems to be bad enough 
that the cde pattern would be avoided, so it should be safe to fix.

cde -> code

that why i proposed in R3 dev blog tomaybe change the way to handle 
block of widgets using grid to suport  the widget like in GTK+ (yes 
i'm not original shame  on me )

VID3 is completely different. I doubt the bug would even apply there.

hum i didn't tested the bug with teh R3  alpha i have but i will

Doc, I'm not assuming that Carl is chasing windmills at this point; 
unfortunately I don't have enough info to make that judgement. All 
I can tell is that the Unicode stuff was deep and far reaching, and 
required many core changes, so much so that it had to be done first. 
That was definitely not chasing windmills, that was bare minimum 
functionality for a modern programming language, something that all 
of the other language rewrites going on right now have had to do.

AFAIK, there is no above or below system in VID3. It layouts more 
like traditional systems like QT or GTK.

above = across, sorry

but since VID3 is in limbo right now, it may not be useful to do 
tests with it.

From what I can tell though, the work Carl is doing on VID is having 
implications for low lever stuff like binding and the object! model.

lever -> level

Modules are built on objects, plugins are built on modules, and UDTs 
relate to plugins. He is working on the core.

Even threads are affected by binding issues.

ass you stated VID3  is really different from VID2 ....  the code 
the way it is doesn't work on vid3

no it will absolutely not work in VID3 :-)

That's not a bug though :)

since vid2 is still existing yes ... VID3  who can tell when we will 
put our hands on it ?