World: r3wp

I predictate your faillure in less than 4 more moth ... January 2011 
maximum the actual bounty hunters R3 group will be disbanded and 
nothing concrete will have been done apart the extraction of VID 
from R3.exe to hostkit. When you take money you do things like professionals 
that's the minimal things this means a list of what will be done. 
A roadmap with important steps and release dates  for those important 
steps before starting anywork you make that dev plan to appreciation 
to the public you debat it serriously you remove things you add things 
... You try to get involve the most possible people that have been 
already involve in R2 GUI use or creation because they have the practice 
knowledge and experience. 


Thousand way of being serrious starting a positive attractive motion 
for this part could have been done but by lack of interrest and generosity 
you end doing what you are doing ...

Stop "predictating" in here. You have groups where nobody will object 
against your "predictates". This is not one of them.

Shadwolf - "as my futur contribution ? plain and simple their will 
be none  of it ..." - ok then, leave us alone, and please save us 
from your constant ranting noone is interested in, especially here 
in that group - please move that to advocacy ... ...

Is there a possibilty of having a noop in the dialect?  Sometimes 
it's convenient when dynamically constructing layouts to put something 
in just as a filler ...

ladislav i foresee what i want and this R3 gui have not better reason 
to succeed than the previous intents since it's based on the same 
main problems to it's achievement in time you will get it.

I have no reason to shut my mouth when i see things so wrong. I exposed 
what i though of this process now please don't fuel me anymore do 
as i was far and in january 2011 remember i said this was going to 
a faillure.

graham, don't know if it's useful, but I think PAD can serve as a 
filler.

pad .. what does it do the object?

PAD is a style, so it produces an object which then moves the next 
faces one grid place forward, just like any other style.

This layout:

view [panel 2 [button pad pad button]]

...produces this:

http://rebol.hmkdesign.dk/files/r3/gui/235.png

yes, that's what I meant .. it adds an unnecessary object to the 
main object

I'm looking for a no-op which does not the graphic object created

alte

r

it's just a dialect syntactic artifice

eg.

condition: either boolean [ button ] [ no-ope ]

view compose/deep [
	button
	(condition)	
	button
]

I'll pass it on.

Why can we use just an IF?

can=can't

That behavior would be consistent with R3's Parse dialect. The actual 
behavior would only be comparable to Parse, since there is no failure 
and backtracking.

Robert, how?

That behavior
 = Robert's suggestion

Where are you going to use the IF robert?

view compose/deep [
	button
	(IF condition [button])	
	button
]

>> condition: false
== false
>> probe compose/deep [ button (if condition [button]) button ]
[button none button]
== [button none button]

>> compose/deep [ button (either false [[button]] [()]) button ]
== [button button]

Yes, and this none could be skipped by the layout parser.

yes, that's what I'm asking for .. a no-op

I wanted to have this implicit NONE skipping for a long time. I'm 
not a fan of  using an either just to return "nothing". IMO an if 
that doesn't return anything at all makes a lot of sense if used 
with COMPOSE.

if no-op is served by none, then fine

I misunderstood your suggestion, Robert. I thought you were talking 
about adding an IF command to the layout dialect, not to the code 
in the ().

Robert, this implicit none is not possible ...with Rebol

We discussed this recently

Brian, no that was the idea.

but since none can be used sometimes for part of the layout I thought 
it would be easier to parse if we used something else

The IF command in the dialect would get rid of the COMPOSE and do 
this: view [button if (condition) button button]

That is what I meant by a Parse-like IF. Possibly not doable in the 
layout dialect, due to overhead.

Putting the IF in the paren and using COMPOSE would be something 
different.

I don't see why.... it just adds more clutter to the dialect

I'd vote against that idea

Like I said, too much overhead. But that is what I thought Robert 
was suggesting (until he demonstrated otherwise).

unless we start adding conditions to the whole vid dialect ...

That would be the suggestion, yes.

I don't like it though. It you add conditions to the dialect it will 
make it too easy to put semantic code into a layout that is just 
supposed to be for display.

In fact why don't we consider using parens to switch out of the layout 
dialect instead of making us use compose'deep

nah... too complicated

Again, there should be no DO dialect code in the layout dialect. 
Unless actions are called, the layout dialect should be declarative, 
not procedural. That is what makes it safe.

we already have a do in the vid dialect

It's a DO action. The code in its argument only gets called as a 
result of the action, not at layout time.

view layout [
	button 
	do [ this at layout time [
]

That code doesn't make sense, even with the missing ]. Are you thinking 
VID or the R3 GUI?

Oh, you meant do [ this at layout time ]. It doesn't do it at layout 
time, only when the button is clicked.

The DO [ ... ] is an action modifier to the button declaration.