World: r3wp

Now there is init-size, and my opinion is, that it is confusing, 
if the init-size is possible, yet it does nothing obvious. In such 
a case, I prefer to error-out at layout level, not allowing even 
init-size being specified inline ...

Kaj, perhaps this is the same misunderstanding as for host kit work. 
It seems that many times, when Carl or RM Asset offers a task to 
the community, the response is negative.

Bolek, I don't understad what 'bug' you found in button??? The init-size 
in options is OK

That is the basic resizing rule - no error, just resize respecting 
the Max-size. The resizing algorithm shall not be cleverer than you 
are, changing the Max-size sometimes, reading your mind.

It is correct that you can't do button 50x50 because the button definition 
is:
	facets: [
		init-size: 130x24
		max-size: 230x24
		min-size: 80x24
		....
	]

So as Bolek said..either make own 'fat-button' style or change the 
size related facets inline in your layout definiton.

init-size should be removed from the options, if it does nothing 
usefull imo ...

??? - it says, how you want to resize the face when shown for the 
first time

without init-size in the options definition you won't be able to 
set the size like: button XxY

That is *very* useful

On the other hand, Max-size says, what the resizing limits are.

Now I don't understand - what is it good for having button 100x100 
allowed to be specified inline, if the resizing does not allow me 
to have what I (user) expect? That should be precisely documented, 
or not allowed at all?

That is the property of resizing - you can resize, but resizing *always* 
respects Max-size

you can still specify any pair!  value in the defined resizing limits 
no?

also another possibility is to change also the max-size if user forces 
to change the size using the inline pair!

BTW, if you don't want to have any Max-size limit, you can just tell 
something like:

    max-size: 2147483647x2147483647

, which is exactly as good as "no limit"

facets: [
		init-size: 130x24
		max-size: 230x24
		min-size: 80x24
		....
	]


In above code, I thought, that we could allow setting of init-size, 
which would readjust the max-size .....

that's what I meant

Does a style have to have a max-size? I am worried about scaling 
to large screens. I remember that was a weakness of Carl's GUI. I 
know you guys changed the resizing algorithm, but I didn't catch 
what the new algorithm was.

No mind reading, if you want to change the Max-size, you need to 
know, what do *you* want it to be.

aha, clear, hmm ....

Are faces still scaled proportionally relative to their max-size?

by default every style has the max-size set to the 2147483647x2147483647 
value so I think that is enough

by default = unless it is not redefined in the style definiton

Brian: re the "does a style have to have a max-size?" - see my above 
note, how to arrange a Max-size as good as "no limit"

Re: "Are faces still scaled proportionally relative to their max-size?" 
- not at all

Cyphre - without init-size in the options definition you won't be 
able to set the size like: button XxY

You cannot do that right now, so what's the point.

the trouble is, that the max-size for a button is lower, than what 
user might want as an init-size? The "fix" is to allow much larger 
buttons, no? Why does henrik want to prevent that?

I got that (was typing while you posted that). Second question: good, 
I didn't like that about Carl's GUI.

Rebolek, my point was we should change the button init code so it 
changes max-size if user specifies the inline pair!

(Those were in reply to Ladislav)

Cyphre yes, that's what I'm suggesting from beginning, but it requires 
Ladislav's death ;)

Are faces still scaled proportionally relative to their max-size?

 - no ,this was too confusing in the Carls version...max-size is just 
 simple limit no magic here.

we should change the button init code so it changes max-size if user 
specifies the inline pair!

 - I am against that change, you don't know (not being able to read 
 mind) what is the Max-size user wants to have anyway

it's the size user specified in layout dialect

Can you specify more than one pair inline? Don't know the current 
dialect processing code.

yes, you can

it's the size user specified in layout dialect

 - if the user specifies Max-size, then I do agree, if not, then there 
 is no reason why to "read his mind"

init-size min-size max-size?

Whatever order you feel is appropriate.

Here are my two proposals:


1) [button "text" 100x100] is equivalent of [button "text" [min-size: 
100x100 init-size: 100x100 max-size: 100x100]


2) [button "text" 100x100] is error, because size cannot be specified 
in dialect.

I think it is still better to specify it either using stylize or 
button options [...]

But current behaviour, where you can write [button "text" 100x100] 
and button hapilly ignores that value is unacceptable IMO.

options: [
		text-body: [string! block!]
		area-color: [tuple!]
		init-size: [pair!]
		wide: [percent!]
	] 


you may specifiy only one pair for a button - init-size, inlined, 
that is ...

Same here, but I am trying to make it easier for Pekr. Or at least 
what he thinks is easier.

So my proposal is:
remove init-size [pair!] from Options

add [init-width [number!]] and use it for changing the init-size/x 
value only

That's same problem as now.

[button "wiiideeee" 10000] won't make 10000px wide button.

so what

so what's it good for?