World: r3wp

I put a warning on the document ...

the more I look at it the more I think settings is a better word 
than options

attributes is also better than facets

Answering my own question above .. this is shorter

code-text-list: text-list [
        content: [

            text-list-box :list-data :area-color options [ text-style: 'code 
            ]
            scroller
        ]
]

looks like 'comment { } is not allowed inside a stylize block

Is that a bug?

Ashley, "just trying to understand why we still need the concept 
of faces under R3." - The role of faces in R3 are just what they 
were in R2, a collection of features and functions inside an object, 
but instead of the underlying View system being closed, they are 
now linked to a fixed set of GOBs, that we eventually can extend 
with all sorts of features. So:

R2:

Layout -> Face tree -> View

R3:

Layout -> Face tree -> GOBs -> View


Faces are what are generated by the layout. So the "face factory" 
is still needed and styles are the "molds" or prototypes. Within 
the face factory, the GOB factory exists. I would assume this separation 
makes HW acceleration or replacing GOBs with a different structure, 
much easier later. GOBs are redrawn using DRAW-FACE and that is handled 
inside the styles.


Styles use resources like fonts, colors, materials and standard draw 
blocks. This eventually helps skinning and abstracts these things 
away from the styles themselves.


The obscure FEEL object is replaced with a set of on-* actors that 
are run at specific times in specific sequences during runtime. They 
are more fine grained, so you can determine what you want to do, 
for example during various stages of face initialization.


The relationship between the layout dialect and faces is a bit different 
than under R2: you can't access the whole face in R3, only facets. 
For example the GOB itself, is not a facet and neither are internal 
states. So in order to change a deeper element of a style, you need 
to create a new style. This seems cumbersome, but is badly needed 
for large layouts, where we are semantically separating appearance 
from purpose. VID allowed this to be an organic mess. We may figure 
out a way to make creating derivative styles a bit easier.

Graham, STYLIZE is a dialect, so it would need to support comments.

I see Graham is already submitting GUI reports to Curecode. I think 
we need a separate project for that. There could be hundreds of issues 
and they shouldn't be mixed with Core bugs.

No, only one report ... not reports :)

well, you might be tempted to submit more. :-)

>> stylize [ bt: button [] comment { }]

** GUI ERROR: Invalid style syntax: comment

Is that a GUI or core error ?  :)

that's a dialect error. Try to source stylize.

to be curious, what do you need the comment for?

Do we really need a r3 curecode project?

r3 gui

comments are for failed experiments :)

yes, we really need it.

We should ask doc ....

But there is a graphics section under cc

Yes, it should not be there. There are many subsections: Styles, 
layout, View, Text, DRAW, etc. We may face hundreds of reports on 
styles alone.

You're optimistic!

Or a pessemist :)

Better to be prepared for a flood of reports. I suspect the GUI might 
be a bit popular.

:-) So when the work on GUI is supposed to be restarted? Do we wait 
for its inclusion into HostKit section?

Need to finish a project first and then we're beginning. Hopefully 
next week. With a place to report bugs, you can start a little earlier.

If you need more attributes than the standard gob! provides then 
just make the data attribute an object! and put them in there.
 Right, and that object is called a "face".

Gabriele, was make-gob entirely finished? It can still be useful.

I was just reading about upcoming new Facebook facelift ... and following 
the discussion I found out, that one person suggests very cool Facebook 
client done in Silverlight. I needed to download SL beta 4. Then 
I tried that mighty app. Guy, I can tell you - we can do it in View 
anyday. Its not any faster, any better, and I would really like to 
see the ugly code behind the app. My long time suggestion to popularise 
View is to wrap known services - gmail, FB, etc. E.g. especially 
on my Winmobile, ther's a FB client done by MS, and you can't even 
read more than 1 reaction to your post. I imediatelly can imagine 
Winmobile client in R3 :-)


Here's the screenshot - http://xidys.com/pekr/facebook-silverlight.jpg

can't access your pic.

Works from here ...

does now... strange

Graham, the first definition of "facet" is the one that applies here. 
The part of a gemstone that has facets is called the face. Facet 
means part of a face.

Pekr, couldn't you at least smile ?  :)

Brian, there are just too many words that are so similar ...

face - 2nd level gui object with gobs, like a scheme
facet - part of a face
faced - local variables for a widget instance

It's a perfectly valid english word, used correctly. And it's clearly 
related to "face", whereas "part" or "attribute" is not. "Part" of 
what?

where's the jewel?

If you want to confuse people with new meanings for words .. so be 
it

It's not just jewel related, it's a general term for "part of a face". 
It's just used metaphorically for jewels, meaning part of the appearance.

I don't know about "faced" though - it's been a while since I looked 
at the GUI code, so I don't remrmber what it means.

Show me where this occurs in general usage ...

My complaint is that there are three words with similar spellings 
and different meanings

why do this when there are thousands of other words to choose from??

locals is probably a better name than faced

The metaphor is widely used. And there is a lot of English that isn't 
generally used, because most people aren't specific enough in their 
language. Only linguists, literary types and tech people are specific 
enough in their language usage to need a large vocabulary. For instance, 
I had to study historical linguistics to get a specific enough vocablary.

I think this is a type of academic type of argument that sits poorly 
with users trying to grasp new ideas

The similar spellings are a bonus - they make the words more clearly 
related. If you have a problem with the word "faced" then pick another 
word with a more correct meaning, but be sure to pick one with the 
word "face" in it so it will be clearly related.

Change face to jewel and I'd be happy with facet