World: r3wp

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?

its useless, confusing, bad :-)

having such non logical behaviour, then better remove the option 
altogether. Cyphre's proposal is an interim solution, sitll bettter 
than having it the way it is now ...

Can't init-size when specified (especially inline) push out max-size 
in both dimensions if it's larger?

Brianh - that was EXACTLY my idea, and it contradicts nothing ...

From my POV either you accept there was some intention of the style-maker 
to define limits or you have to make own derived style.

Cyphre, so your POV changed from 11:48 where you proposed that init 
code for button should set max-size if user sets size in dialect?

That approach would make sense if there was a good reason for the 
limit, like a larger limit would screw up the draw blocks or something. 
Cyphre, is that the case with the button style?

No, also it is on the style-maker to define what should be done with 
the inline pair! so it depends always on the style implementation 
and not as generic rule.

Yes, but we are not talking about some generic rule, but about button.

Right. So it looks like Pekr wants to be a style maker, but for some 
reason is doing it in the layout block instead of with stylize (or 
whatever it's called)?

The thing is if we implement it for button then Pekr will be shouting 
why it won't work for field etc. ? ;)

Brian, yes, that's my understanding as well.

I want simple things to be simple, yet complex things being possible 
...

So this gets back to a "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's. 
Render unto God that which is God's." argument, even if both are 
Pekr :)