World: r3wp

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 :)

Rebolek - ok, decided - please adjust according to brianH's suggestion 
:-) If init-size exceeds the max size, just adjust the max size, 
easy as that, fixed, not breaking anything :-)

I'm not going to change anything if it means Ladislav's death ;)

:-))))

No, Ladislav object against something else imo, no?

No, it was exactly against this.

He calls it mind reading.

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"


My take is - if the max size is lower than requested size, then let 
be requested size be the max size. What could be the harm? Or do 
you think that in such a case, user could complain, that his button 
does not resize to being even bigger?

I do not expect that every user that will write [button "text" 100x100] 
has studied source or documentation to understand how resizing works 
and what max-size mean, they probably just want to have their button's 
size to be 100x100.

So either the code should set all size to 100x100 or it should throw 
error and not allow setting size like this at all.

nothing else makes sense IMO

agreed.

I think I will survive it ...., I am just "Figting" for the average 
future user ...   :-)

While Cyphre and I are fighting for that same user a few minutes 
later when they need to make a change :)

I don't understand how you can fight for something other than Pekr 
when he just repeated your suggestion.

And skipped over what I wrote earlier, and later.

Ok, so I see only two options here:
1) remove all 'inline pairs' from all the styles definitions

2) define 'generic rule' during the style initialization: max-size 
= max(init-size, max-size)

great,so now we're back to exactly what I wrote half an our earlier 
:)

and the winner is?

and because Ladislav doesn't like #2, we should probably go with 
#1.

if we do #1 we don't solve this case:
button options [init-size: 50x50]

Rebolek - I am not sure Ladislav does not like #2

I would rather hear it from him though. He might have a really good 
reason to choose one or the other.

button options [init-size: 50x50 max-size: 50x50]

solved!

We should remember that one of the goals is to minimize the number 
of times we see sizes specified in layouts though.

Yes, so when we remove that option, we minimize that number to zero.

Rebolek, but every 'average user' will be hit by this no? That's 
the same as the question "why button 50x50 doesn't work?"

Not zero because it can be in the options block as you wrote above.

To be fair, we could say, that if I specify button 5x5, what to do 
then? Should min-size be set to min(init-size, min-size)? What if 
user is an idiot, and sets the size to -5x-5? :-)

I still don't understand the difference between these two:
button 50x50 options [max-size: 50x50]
and
button options [init-size: 50x50 max-size: 50x50]

Cyphre, when somebody's fiddling with options block, they must understand 
at least facets. When writing code like [button 100x100], you do 
not need to know anything about style internals.

The only thing which is clear is, that it can't stay the way it is 
....

why is the first 'worse'  than the second?

first, it's some mixed style that really looks strange

second, it somehow suggest that [button 50x50] alone is useful

Guys, I just read through all this and I'm confused a bit why it's 
so complicated.

which is not

init-size: 130x24
max-size: 230x24
min-size: 80x24

When this is on style level, just writting button should give me 
a button with these facets.

Bolek ,ok, then let's remove all the inline pairs! and tell the 'average 
user' there are no sizes. Do you think it will be better for him?

definitely better than setting size to 50x50 and having button whose 
size is not 50x50

If I write: button 50x50 and don't violate min-size, max-size OK. 
If I violate one, we can throw an error: "Hey, please explicitly 
override the master-mind of the style-creator for min-size / max-size. 
And know what you do.

Robert - and? :-) I started with an argument, that when I was porting 
the demo, button 50x50 is allowed, but does not deliver what user 
expects, so we either remove it, or adapt to allow it, which might 
not be so easy to stay consistent.

min / max-size are IMO for style writers first. And can be overrided, 
with a not so easy syntax, by programmers.