> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 2:09 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [REBOL] Re: RFC: Forms generator / RAD dialect > I agree, but isn't the answer just to make better use of styles. eg.
Hi, I don't know. I won't call me a VID expert at the moment. My goal is to let people that don't know how to program, that don't know about Rebol write down a specification of there needs and have a generator do the rest. These kind of people understand the concept of a button and an associated action that's it. > <CODE> > ; Derived types > lab-address: lbl "Address:" > fld-address: field to-width 3 Hm... This is very domain specific. It should be more general. > lab-date: lbl "Date:" > fld-date: date-field A Date field with calendar selector etc. is OK. This is just a heavy weight widget that can be used. I see these things positioned into a widget-library or functions that assemble lower-level into higher-level widgets. > Defining things in this manner means we can easily make > global changes to both VID types and our derived types. For the developer of the framework I agree. The user of the dialect doesn't care about it. > I believe this approach is more efficient than trying to create > a dialect that is used to essentially achieve the same > result, but feel free to point out the flaws in my logic / > approach. ;) As said, IMO it's a question about what kind of target users you see. I see my friends not able to program and begging me for this and that app. If I can concentrate on the framework let them do there little reblets themself. Robert -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
