World: r3wp

:-

put that light-saber away, you're overreacting!

my mistake, I cut my own smiley with my lightsaber
:-)

pyromaniac vandal.

Returning (with some effort) to serious consideration of your argument; 
I'm in agreement (how could I not), but I would like to point out 
that it's a bit like a slippery slide argument: if I accept to add 
just a few more characters (? -> -of) then I'm on the road to creating 
the API with the most unwieldy extra long function names as found 
in other languages (without the utility of Rebol contexts at their 
disposal).

It was just a warning.
The Devil is in the details. 
-of

 could be the devil seed and give birth to abominations, like: get-faces-of-a-face
But I am conforted now ;-)

<Aha..! My evil plan worked..>

Just throwing something out here (as I'm not actively involved in 
R3 and mostly lurk):  I see "-of" as a "what" or "what are" type 
of question, while "?" more like "what is" (and all the rest) type 
of question.
(does it) exist?
(what is the) length?
(what is the) size?
(when was it) modified?
vs
(what are the) faces-of
(what are the) values-of

Then of course, minimum-of and maximum-of break this idea:
(what is the) minimum-of
But this works just as well IMO:
(what is the) minimum?


So looking at that, I'd consider the "?" or "-of" question to not 
so much be based on logic values, but whether it returns a single 
value, or a list of values.

So, +1 for FACES-OF here

What informs about a single value or a list is the use of plural 
in the name.

I've always seen that as incidental, not the meaning, but I guess 
I can see how it works.

FACES? : FACES-OF = 5:6 currently, if I count it correctly

Correcting my overlooking: FACES? : FACES-OF = 5:9

Not the topic, but this function does a strange control.

what do you mean?

In the code, why does it need to check if the contained gobs have 
a consistent data/face/gob ?

It should be consistent at first, no ?

Anyway, for me, REBOL standard is still SUFFIX?, not SUFFIX-OF, since 
it is documented as the proper style, as well as used in the majority 
of cases, like Andreas noted.

In the code, why does it need to check if the contained gobs have 
a consistent data/face/gob ?

 - because we had problems with text-faces, which contain a face-less 
 gob, i.e. a gob for which gob/data is a face, which does not have 
 face/data = gob. This caused a cycle for faceless gobs.

I do not know who introduced those faceless gobs, does somebody know?

I have two questions about R3 GUI : 
* do you have a demo script ? 

* do you have the same design has shown by Carl in march http://www.rebol.com/r3/docs/gui/guide.html
?

demos are available, just see above (Henrik mentioned how you get 
them)

Ladislav, actually I don't see what you said in this function. I 
 only see that a gob and its gob/data/gob must be the same, which 
is rather curious

The design has been enhanced, the new doc is almost ready, will be 
made available on Tuesday, I think.

faces?: funct [
    "Get a block of faces in a panel"
    face [object!]
] [
    face: face/gob
    result: make block! length? face
    repeat i length? face [
        sg: face/:i

        if same? sg sg/data/gob [append result sg/data]  ;   <<<< UH !?
    ]
    result

I  only see that a gob and its gob/data/gob must be the same

 - that is what I thought as well. But, aftter causing crashes, I 
 had to rewrite the FACES? function to make up for the "faceless" 
 gobs, as I mentioned.

Ah, You're saying I have not the last version

So, I am asking Carl, whetherthe "faceless" gobs were his idea, or 
not.

No, Steeve, I am saying, that you do not have the simpler version 
you are proposing, since that version *was* causing crashes of the 
GUI.

Ok but, this function does not resolve the issue, it's not checking 
if the inner gobs have a face.
Or I completly lost you point.

I hope, this will help you:

faceless?: func [
    {find out, whether a gob is faceless}
    gob [gob!]
][not same? gob/data/gob gob]

Ladislav - as for docs - will you update rebol.com docs, or RMA's 
own docs? I mean - is this gui endorsed as an official version by 
Carl? I hope so, or the confusion will continu, unless Carl removes 
reference to old docs too ...

To my mind a faceless gob may have its gob/data == none!
And even if it has an object , the gob property may not be here.
the faceless? function is not safe

I mean it will throw an error in my cases

Pekr, I still have to make the doc available for Carl as well as 
for you. (lots of changes made recently).

I just mean if your docs will replace rebol.com wiki ones?

Steeve, the function is as safe as I need it to be. (the "standard" 
GUI needs to work)

Ok ok

Pekr, I guess, that you are one step faster. That will not happen 
before Carl gets the doc.

The? problem? with? painting-a? bike-shed? is? that? everyone? thinks? 
he? knows? the? right? colour?

hello.  I got to run the R3 gui and got some troubles : i use the 
r3-a110-3-1(1).exe and the r3-guihttp://94.145.78.91/files/r3/gui/r3-gui.r3
and run this : do %r3-gui.r3 and got this in return :

>> do %r3-gui.r3

Script: "R3 GUI - load and start" Version: $Id: $ Date: 9-Dec-2010/10:32:04+1:00

** access error: cannot open: shape reason: "module not found"

>> import %r3-gui.r3
** Script error: datatype assertion failed for: spec/version
** Where: assert -apply- make catch case -apply- apply import
** Near: assert/type [
    spec object!
    body block!
    mixins [o...

>>

** access error: cannot open: shape reason: "module not found"

>> import %r3-gui.r3
** Script error: datatype assertion failed for: spec/version
** Where: assert -apply- make catch case -apply- apply import
** Near: assert/type [
    spec object!
    body block!
    mixins [o...

>>

can anybody help me ?

I think you don't have the R3 version with View. You can download 
it here: http://www.rm-asset.com/code/downloads/

You need to use the R3 version with the graphics APIs included - 
recent RT releases have been core only. Try http://www.rm-asset.com/code/downloads/files/rma-r3-build.zip
(which I got from http://www.rm-asset.com/code/downloads/).

question... why do you use:   [ face: face/gob ] and not  [ gob: 
face/gob ]  and  why you need   [ same? gog/data/gob gob ] ?

The last one: Gobs with a face have the face assigned to the gob's 
data field, and the gob assigned to the face's gob field. Yes, this 
is circular, but this is because there are two tree roots. FACELESS? 
checks for that circular reference.

Faces are often made up of many gobs, but only one gob is the root 
gob of the face, so only that gob is assigned to the face's gob field. 
The rest are "faceless".

Cannot be used better naming?