World: r3wp

aspects

'facet might be harder to change. I assume Carl chose this name, 
because it's closely related to FACE and we have GET-FACE and GET-FACET 
functions, which I find to be very clear.

and too easier to mix up ?

facet 


. One of the flat polished surfaces cut on a gemstone or occurring 
naturally on a crystal.
2. Anatomy A small, smooth, flat surface, as on a bone or tooth.

3. Biology One of the lenslike visual units of a compound eye, as 
of an insect.

4. One of numerous aspects, as of a subject. See Synonyms at phase.

Well, to be honest, while Graham is imo right, that especially to 
novices, better wording could mean faster learning curve, I also 
have to say, that it is not the most important topic. Finishing VID 
is :-) I would like to see incorporated Carl's planned changes, and 
other subsystems being built-in (still not mechanisms for tabbing, 
accelerator keys display (can be done via layer), full keyboard navigaton 
etc.)

I don't agree. I've built quite a few styles in R3 now, and I've 
not once mixed up FACE and FACET, particularly because the path FACE/FACETS 
exists. I find it to be a pretty natural word to use.

Aspect

1.. appearance to the eye; visual effect the physical aspect of the 
landscape

2. a distinct feature or element in a problem, situation, etc.; facet 
to consider every aspect of a problem

3. the way in which a problem, idea, etc., may be considered to consider 
a problem from every aspect
4. a facial expression; manner of appearing a severe aspect

5. a position facing a particular direction; outlook the southern 
aspect of a house

6. a view in a certain direction a good aspect of the village from 
the tower

7. a surface that faces in a given direction the ventral aspect of 
a fish

8. (Spirituality, New Age, Astrology & Self-help / Astrology) Astrology 
any of several specific angular distances between two planets or 
a planet and the Ascendant or Midheaven measured, from the earth, 
in degrees along the ecliptic

9. (Linguistics / Grammar) Grammar a category of verbs or verbal 
inflections that expresses such features as the continuity, repetition, 
or completedness of the action described Compare perfective [2] progressive 
[8] [10]
10. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Botany) Botany

a.  the compass direction to which a plant habitat is exposed, or 
the degree of exposure
b.  the effect of the seasons on the appearance of plants
11. Archaic glance or gaze

it's much easier to confuse FACET and FACED.

face ... facet .. faced ....

Aspect is also talked about in aspect ratio, which could become a 
function in R3, like it is in the VID Extension Kit.

way too confusing

I don't agree... but then again, I've written a lot of styles. It 
may appear confusing to beginners.

We're not talking about experts!

Styles are built by experts. Beginners won't see the word in layouts.

I think that's the wrong attitude

Henrik, where are your styles?

No, not wrong attitude. Styles are built by experts, i.e. people 
separated from those that build layouts. In VID, you don't have this 
distinction as you can manipulate styles directly in the layout, 
but you do, somewhat, in RebGUI.

Graham, I haven't uploaded them. They need to be reworked from scratch.

Carl's styles are very good for educational purposes.

What's wrong with your styles

they are a big jumble of experiments. not a good place to start from.

also there will be additions to DRAW which eventually will make style 
DRAW blocks easier to make, than in my experiments.

interesting - more info on draw additions, please? :-)

btw - what I liked about Gab's VID was gob dialect to build multigob 
composited styles ... but maybe Carl's VID does not need that ...

Just simple things to shorten draw blocks. I hope we'll get general 
hinting.

Gobs ... and goblets? ;)

Wasn't there any such game? Gobblets of fire? :-)

Pekr, Carl's VID uses a stack of identically sized GOBs that each 
perform separate tasks: Skin, text, debug. Each GOB stack makes one 
face. When designing a style, you never need to touch GOBs at all.

EH?  Even in the on-make actor?

I don't understand the issue, so maybe you are right. What make-bogs 
did, was something different, no? It was about keeping multi-gobs 
togethere, setting their coordinate dependencies and z-order. But 
you hopefully know, what you are talking about, as I am not ....

Why do we need faces/facets at all? Seems:

	Window -> faces -> Gobs

could be:

	Window -> Gobs -> Gobs


If you need more attributes than the standard gob! provides then 
just make the data attribute an object! and put them in there.

Ashley, GOBs are not directly linked to faces.

Is face = gob! ?

<sigh>

Even Ashley doesn't understand the jargon .. QED

Ashley: nope. One face can consist of 3 GOBs.

GOBs are a means for rendering faces at a very low level. Just consider 
it like R2/View, where you, instead of having a cosed up system, 
can tinker with the inner workings of the FACE object in relation 
to View.

Without much understanding, I propose traits insted of facets.

http://www.rebol.net/wiki/VID:_Face

I could live with traits :)

Ashley, sorry GOBs _are_ linked to faces.

OK, a meta-gob to recreate R2 functionality (given that a gob! can 
only do one thing)? I understand why layout was a "face factory" 
under V2, just thought we'd naturally move to a "gob! factory" approach 
with R3. I'm not being critical, just trying to understand why we 
still need the concept of faces under R3.

but you don't need to manage them

Ashley, yes, we just have a bit deeper abstraction layer in R3. Things 
like MAKE-GOB can still be useful for other things.

Is that VID document I referenced still up to date?

Or does it refer to Gabriele's VID ?

No, this is for VID3.4. It seems to be up to date.

last update Aug 2007 .. that was before Carl wrote VID+

Sorry, no. That is for VID3. It has concepts like FEEL and LOOK, 
which VID3.4 doesn't have.

exactly