r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[!REBOL3 GUI]

Maxim
12-Aug-2010
[2556]
we just need to be able to switch to and from those based on the 
current task, IMHO.
Graham
12-Aug-2010
[2557]
it's just a transformation ... so where would that transformation 
hurt the least
BrianH
12-Aug-2010
[2558]
Sounds good to me. But potentially confusing - that will need to 
be managed.
Maxim
12-Aug-2010
[2559]
by "need" I mean, it would be simpler if engine can adapt to the 
task
Graham
12-Aug-2010
[2560]
I'm suggesting that making the user make the transform is incorrect
Maxim
12-Aug-2010
[2561]
no its NOT just a transformation.
Graham
12-Aug-2010
[2562x3]
the View engine should handle this transformation
so that's transparent
like silicon dioxide
BrianH
12-Aug-2010
[2565]
It won't be transparent either way. Either you need to specify the 
direction of the coordinate system (declarative overhead) or specify 
the transform (procedural overhead). And there will be computing 
overhead either way.
Graham
12-Aug-2010
[2566x2]
I wonder if this will help in rendering letters that use an upper 
baseline
I'd imagine you just vector the computation engine so that there 
is no overhead
BrianH
12-Aug-2010
[2568x2]
The question model is which is more efficient to use, both at development 
time and runtime. Letters will be tough either way (likely more for 
bottom-up), but graphics will be simpler bottom-up until display 
time.
The question model is which -> The question is which model
Maxim
12-Aug-2010
[2570]
if we have a simple rasterization switch, per gob, then it will not 
cause any speed difference.
Graham
12-Aug-2010
[2571x2]
why exactly are we using top down?
Because AGG uses it ??
Maxim
12-Aug-2010
[2573x2]
cause that is how layout is performed.
cause it rasterizes in that direction.  is my guess.   its calculations 
actually aren't different either way.
Graham
12-Aug-2010
[2575]
maybe we can have both
BrianH
12-Aug-2010
[2576]
Top down is faster to render on a screen, and faster to make UI layouts 
for (extept for fixed-size windows).
Graham
12-Aug-2010
[2577x2]
top down for layout and bottom up for draw
that we can confuse so many more people
BrianH
12-Aug-2010
[2579]
Top down for layout and text gobs, bottom up for draw? That confusion 
is the declarative overhead I mentioned earlier.
Maxim
12-Aug-2010
[2580x2]
it WON'T work... you guys are missing a point.  the coordinates have 
different origins.
but each gob has its origin specified, so for a single gob, we could 
simply ask the RASTERIZER to go bottom-up.
BrianH
12-Aug-2010
[2582]
Gobs are rectangular. A gob type that has an external origin point 
doesn't have to use that corner for its internal coordinates.
Maxim
12-Aug-2010
[2583]
this will not cause any procedural overhead, and will simply reverse 
the coordinates.

from within a gob, the origin becomes the lower left corner.
BrianH
12-Aug-2010
[2584x2]
Yes, that is what I meant by bottom up.
But we don't want bottom up in some cases (everything but Draw).
Maxim
12-Aug-2010
[2586x2]
I know.   which is why only the rasterizer needs to know where to 
start.
but that depends on the specifics of the engine.  afaik, AGG, in 
the way it is being used by view renders each element on the canvas, 
one by one.
BrianH
12-Aug-2010
[2588]
The coordinate system used for most OSes screen coordinates is top 
down.
Maxim
12-Aug-2010
[2589]
brian.   it is inconsequential... its numbers .  rendering things 
starting from the bottom won't change the coordinates. it will simply 
invert them without requiring you to adapt any number.
Graham
12-Aug-2010
[2590]
Max .. suggest it to Carl
BrianH
12-Aug-2010
[2591]
Maxim, do you not get that I am agreeing with you? I am just disagreeing 
that it should be bottom-up all the time :)
Maxim
12-Aug-2010
[2592]
I never said it should be all the time... it can easily be a switch 
on each gob.
BrianH
12-Aug-2010
[2593]
Some gob types (only Draw, maybe images, afaict) would benefit from 
bottom up.
Maxim
12-Aug-2010
[2594]
as long as the gob knows its size it knows how to move its origin 
wrt its parent gob and render upside down.
BrianH
12-Aug-2010
[2595]
Having a switch on new gobs will add to complexity. Having it fixed 
per gob type lowers complexity (outside of docs and tutorials).
Maxim
12-Aug-2010
[2596]
it should be a switch, since you want your coordinates to align. 
 if you have to add graphics to text, for example, they should use 
the same coordinate system.
BrianH
12-Aug-2010
[2597x2]
Complexity is the enemy for the R3 GUI.
If you have to add graphics to text, you are using Draw.
Maxim
12-Aug-2010
[2599x2]
it won't add to the complexity.  that's the point of it being a switch.
if you are building your own draw gobs, you have an 'option'  for 
it to render upside down.  that's it.
BrianH
12-Aug-2010
[2601]
You can't add graphics to a text gob. Or any of the other specialized 
gobs, just to the draw gob.
Maxim
12-Aug-2010
[2602x2]
yes I know, I am speaking high-level here, sorry.  if you have to 
match values of different gob types which render in different directions, 
it will be mayhem.
which is why it must be a switch.   within everything using the same 
direction by default.
BrianH
12-Aug-2010
[2604x2]
They don't render in different directions. All of them render from 
the top down. What you are talking about is internal coordinates. 
How the gob is located externally has nothing to do with how it is 
coordinated internally.
Gobs can contain other gobs.