World: r3wp
[!REBOL3-OLD1]
older newer | first last |
BrianH 28-Oct-2008 [7804] | You may be off in looking for practical reasons for thin skins - that is a reason why I chose Winamp as an example. Still, if you want a practical example, there is a Chinese version of OpenOffice.org that uses a vertical version of Office 2007's ribbon interface instead of OOo's menus. That is the kind of thing that would be possible with thick skins. |
Pekr 28-Oct-2008 [7805] | So thick skin allows complete change to layout, while the lower layers stay identical? |
BrianH 28-Oct-2008 [7806] | Yup. Complex styles are laid out like panels. Their layout is just as easy to change. |
PeterWood 29-Oct-2008 [7807] | I disagree with "it doesn't matter what strings are internally". If Rebol3 is going to be extensible as promised, the internal representation of all dataypes matters. |
Henrik 29-Oct-2008 [7808] | If you want precise control of the content of string data, use binary. String! is no longer meant to be used for such tricks. |
Pekr 29-Oct-2008 [7809] | From file list example: "text-list files do [set-face ca read-string pick files value]" - where does the 'value come from? Is it internal facet of 'text-list style? |
PeterWood 29-Oct-2008 [7810] | If by "precise control" you mean accessing a string! from C, how would you use binary! instead? |
Gabriele 29-Oct-2008 [7811x2] | string! internals are not OS dependent afaik, and technically it's not UTF-16 either. currently, R3 switches automatically between an array of 8-bit unsigned values, and an array of 16-bit unsigned values. i assume a 32-bit mode will be added in the future as not all codepoints will fit 16 bits, though those that don't are very rare. |
Peter, if you're talking about plugins, then you *won't* have *direct* access to the internal datatype representation, but there is always an abstraction layer. in any case, that abstraction layer hasn't been finalized yet, so, at this point it doesn't matter what strings are internally. | |
PeterWood 29-Oct-2008 [7813x3] | Thanks for the information, Gabriel. Yes, I was taking about plug-ins. It will be interesting to learn of the details once things have been worked out. |
Is the array to 16-bit unisgend values effectively UCS-2? | |
Sorry that should have been : Is the array of 16-bit unsigned values effectively UCS-2? | |
Henrik 29-Oct-2008 [7816] | Pekr, yes, VALUE comes from the face itself, just like in old VID. |
Pekr 29-Oct-2008 [7817] | Henrik - thanks for third video. Still uses lower frame rate? Scrolling still seems being rather slow. It will probably need some optimisations by Cyphre in low level ... |
Henrik 29-Oct-2008 [7818x2] | Pekr, it was meant to be 40 fps, but it ate almost 100% CPU. Rendering is usually about twice as fast. |
h264 realtime encoding is CPU intensive :-) | |
Pekr 29-Oct-2008 [7820] | I was referring to subpanel, seems slow anyway. When you run R3 alpha script called button-colors.r, it is painfully slow. I asked Cyphre, and he told me it would need some optimisations. Those things really should be realtime, or we will not be able to write Office 2007 clone in R3 :-) |
Henrik 29-Oct-2008 [7821] | I'm not sure if it's related. Carl has only just inserted this feature, so I don't know what optimizations are missing. I would guess it does very excessive ON-DRAW on each of the faces in the panel. |
Pekr 29-Oct-2008 [7822] | what is on 061.png? Just boxes? :-) |
Henrik 29-Oct-2008 [7823] | just boxes |
Pekr 29-Oct-2008 [7824x2] | For the fans of REBOL - bbrv posted new blog. You can see there an advert, containing ED set-top-box. It was done during Viscorp times in 1996, when Viscorp was about to take over Amiga from Escom. OS was done by Carl Sassenrath, Jim Goodnow, and Carl even talked RJ Mical to join the group. The project was fiasco, but look at the screenshot. ED set-top-box UI was done in ABL\E, predecessor of REBOL ... |
http://bbrv.blogspot.com/2008/10/everything-everywhere-ii.html | |
BrianH 29-Oct-2008 [7826x4] | Pekr, subpanel was slow on Henrik's demo because of his debug settings. |
Peter, the array of unsigned values would effectively be UCS-2 if it behaves the way Gabriele says. This would mean it would be faster, but use more memory for those with characters outside the BMP. It would also cause a problem on Windows because Windows >= 2000 is internally UTF-16, as are all of its Unicode APIs. | |
You could store UTF-16 in an array of unsigned 16-bit values as long as your length, insertion and deletion routines are UTF-16 aware. | |
INDEX? and LENGTH? would be O(n) though. | |
Pekr 29-Oct-2008 [7830] | Henrik - you'r from Germany? :-) |
Henrik 29-Oct-2008 [7831] | no :-) |
Pekr 29-Oct-2008 [7832] | Then contact Carl to fix his blog :-) |
Henrik 29-Oct-2008 [7833] | I did :-) |
Pekr 29-Oct-2008 [7834] | why debug red lines can't be seen, if full gob size is utilised? Can't it be layered inserting new gob into gob/pane? |
Henrik 29-Oct-2008 [7835] | It's not supposed to be seen, because otherwise I wouldn't be able to see the lines that are supposed to occupy those pixels by the style itself. The debug function is activated like this: view [button "hello" debug] and the red box appears in the face, not around it. The red box stretches to the very edge of the gob, so you can see where you draw. The box is generated in the same draw block, by simply inserting a red box in the beginning, if the debug flag is enabled. Having this box, helped us solved numerous layout bugs. |
Pekr 29-Oct-2008 [7836] | Yes, but why not insert it at the tail then? Because, when not seen, it does not work for you, no? What about styles, which do utilise the whole gob size? |
Henrik 29-Oct-2008 [7837] | Read the first line in my response for your first question. :-) |
Pekr 29-Oct-2008 [7838x2] | Anyway - I was surprised by addition of debug modes. It will greatly improve situation over R2 VID. |
... when you debug, you don't want to see your lines that are supposed to be there :-) | |
Henrik 29-Oct-2008 [7840] | The second question: Some styles will occupy the entire gob size, yes. That's no problem. The red box is mainly there to display where the border is on the gob. Nothing else. I had great trouble aligning styles without it. |
Pekr 29-Oct-2008 [7841] | your site's down .... |
Henrik 29-Oct-2008 [7842x2] | Pekr, correct. |
I see, perhaps it's one of the mysterious Cheyenne crashes. | |
PeterWood 29-Oct-2008 [7844] | BrianH: As I understand UCS-2 cannot be used to encode characters outside the BMP. It is a full subset of UTF-16. It should not cause problems with WIndows Unicode API except that it would not be able to display characters outside the BMP. (It would instead include an non-displayable character for each 2-bytes returned by Windows.) |
BrianH 30-Oct-2008 [7845] | The problem would come from the Windows API returning characters that can't be handled which would appear to REBOL as 2 non-displayable characters, or REBOL code inserting characters inbetween double characters by accident, or copy grabbing partial characters. |
Pekr 30-Oct-2008 [7846x2] | Henrik - re your new screenshots - calculator - what is the reason grouped buttons of math operations are not precisely aligned vertically (at the bottom) as the num pad? Is it a bug in layout, or is it like it should be? |
e.g. numbers 68, 69 .... | |
Henrik 30-Oct-2008 [7848] | Pekr, illustrations for Carl to use for fixing those alignment bugs. |
Pekr 30-Oct-2008 [7849] | Henrik - is the gradient type/structure the same for the above mentioned calculator buttons and for the normal buttons in another screenshots? That calculator one looks good. But maybe it is because of white text color .... |
Henrik 30-Oct-2008 [7850] | The button style is called MINI-BUTTON and is derived from BUTTON. It's meant to be used in groups and confined spaces. It took about 5 minutes to write. The font is custom for this application. |
Henrik 31-Oct-2008 [7851] | BrianH, can you talk about the set [a: b:] issue and what it means for us? |
Gabriele 31-Oct-2008 [7852] | Brian: same as there is a conversion between the Linux UTF-8 APIs and the internal 16 bit array, there is a conversion between the Windows UTF-16 APIs and the internal 16 bit array. In the same way, we can eventually support 32 bit arrays and convert those UTF-16 strings that can fit into it to just 8 bit arrays. |
BrianH 31-Oct-2008 [7853] | Gabriele, cool, I was just concerned about speed. I suppose calls to external APIs are likely to be less frequent than internal manipulations, and UCS encoding would make the internal code faster. Either way I'm sure that it will be handled :) |
older newer | first last |