World: r3wp

You won't in the new one. It is designed to make such things unnecessary.

Thanks for the docs reminder. The explanation of DO is here:

http://www.rebol.com/r3/docs/gui/reactors.html

Actually there are several changes by Bolek and Cyphre, that I've 
not yet studied, but much of the work that was handled by LAYOUT 
before is now relegated to PANEL and GROUP, which is why we talk 
so much about them and not a central LAYOUT function. They call various 
subfunctions that specifically focus on creating faces and laying 
them out and resizing them.


So the styles themselves are capable of custom layouts and resizing 
mechanisms and also mechanisms such as face init and triggers. So 
that means you are no longer a "slave" of the LAYOUT function.

That's also why:


1. I was talking a while ago about that you can build a style that 
emulates VID, complete with a dialect, or replace the layout mechanism 
with your own, by rewriting PANEL or GROUP or adding new panel styles.

2. That whenever you want to do a new thing, you should make it as 
a style. That's where you start.

BrianH: stop claiming we don't refer to R3 GUI as VID, please? Where 
did you find out such a claim? It was VID 3 (Gab's version), and 
Carl's version was marked as VID 3.4 by Carl himself imo. There is 
NO point to stop calling it a VID, unless we find another marketing 
name, just because the architecture changed ...

so we can take vid code and run it ?

in a panel ?

Yeah. And then we decided to stop calling it VID because of the confusion. 
There was even a blog where a new name was requested, but it never 
came to a consensus. So we ended up calling it the R# GUI by default. 
The only one who still calls it VID is Pekr.

Graham: Who do you ask, Henrik? :-)

graham, if you want, you can do something like this:

view [vid [...regular vid dialect...]]

If you write a style called VID and implement the dialect in it.

(That was to Perk)

(length? 'VID) < length? 'R3GUI

there's no limit to the size and complexity of a style, if that's 
what you mean.

(length? "rock") < (length? "marshmallow")

What's your point? There are docs and tutorials for VID out there. 
They don't in any way apply to the R3 GUI.

no, typing :)

2 more letters ...

There is no confusion, sooner or later we do reach the matrix's "there 
is no spoon" = there is no R2 - old, forgotten, boring. Do you call 
Delphi 6 not a Delphi, because you can't run the code in Delphi 2 
anymore? Does Perl 6 rename, even if different to the old generation? 
VID is a good name. Simply put version 3.x is not compatible with 
version 2.x, easy as that ... I can't see any confusion, if we talk 
about VID in R3 related channels ...

Yes has one more letter than No. They don't mean the same thing.

(maybe the VID name selection should have been finished :-), if we 
would e.g. chose VIVID (vastly improve VID), there would be no confusion 
nowadays :-)

I call it R3GUI to not confuse it with old VID, but I don't know 
if it's final name (not that I care right now).

I liked VIVID too. The most important thing is to not call it VID 
though.

R3GUI is surely not a final name, althought not that bad. It reads 
as REGUI, which is close to RebGUI :-) It will not work, once R4 
is introduced (in 2020 or so :-)

vivid.com si a porn-site though, so I think that VIVID is 1) not 
useable due to the factor mentioned 2) maybe too general name to 
google for? maybe vivid-gui.com would work though, dunno ... let's 
not opent the topic right now, there was something like 40 or more 
names suggested :-)

I agree with calling it R3GUI until it is publicly available but 
I will not be suprised if we end up calling it VID again in the end...

In R3 channels, I expect vid referring to VID3 ... and why not distinguis 
it via VID2, VID3 then? Easy, and much easier to type than R3GUI 
...

Vivid is a standard english word, so it will not be as easy to search 
for on the internet.

Too bad, it sounds cool.

VID VID2 VID3.4 and back to VID3

(finally a topic that everyone can contribute to :-))

I always preferred GOD for graphic object dialect

but curiously no one else liked it

Nice and sweet

A search for GOD may take a lifetime to find any useful answers :)

well clearly REBOL would be in the same search because of word overloading

How would a search for REBOL GOD not turn up references to Carl, 
Gabriele or Ladislav? :)

http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Glossary
Face

A REBOL object serving as a VID element. A higher level than the 
gob! datatype.

hmm... would that imply that I don't exist?

Graham, that wiki includes R2 docs too. And is outdated - the VID 
references should be excised, or qualified.

Gabriele .. if enough people believe in you, you will exist!

Gabriele, thanks for that "dying for our sins" thing. That was a 
classy thing to do :)

You'll be more than a tea port in a planetary orbit

pot

Ahh... Gabriele has gone .. in a puff of celestial smoke!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Oh oh, I'm not sure I like how this discussion is evolving.

(Ooops, I shouldn't have said that...)

Today, I made some tests (again) with vectorial fonts using draw.

And... It's not that bad when the gamma correction is... corrected.

My test:

font: ["verdana" size: 15]
gamma 2.0
pen none 

http://sites.google.com/site/rebolish/test-1/not_bad.png
(look at the white text)

Can anyone say what the criteria was for how functions were split 
under draw and shape? Seems that the shape ones could just as well 
be under draw.

steeve is doing an irc mini client like ... the font is well designed 
but a gamma correction 2.0 isn't it a bit too clear ? why 2.0 and 
not 20.0 ? seems something completly arbitrary again a speudo hack 
to solve a lack of real work ...

so in conclusion another week without any real progress ...

CAn we have a better calling for R3 hostkit package ... since it's 
supposed to haven't change on API level can't we distinguish the 
number for the hostkit api version and a number for the GUI related 
engine ? something like r3-hostkit-102-GUI-still-the-same.zip ?