Hi Gulik,
Glad to know you're working on it. I'm not sure if your new Canvas will ever work together with Morphic 3, but even if not, I'm sure we can share ideas, may be algorithms and code.
In Morphic 3, I used the term "position" for coordinates (usually x@y) for some morph. I believe this is the usual term for this usual concept. I also wanted to have an object that fully specifies how a morph is located in some space. This includes a "position" together with the used extent, and an orientation angle. I called this objects "Location" (I have a class named Location).
I believe this makes for a nicer design that just having separated instvars in morphs, or a bounds rectangle as in Morphic 2.
I suggest then using "position", and perhaps adding the "location" concept if it fits your design. Anyway, if you come with better names, I could change mine.
Cheers, Juan Vuletich
Ps: I agree with you. Lines are really rectangles. But only if they have square edges. A rectangle with "rounded corners" is not a rectangle anymore!
Michael van der Gulik wrote:
Hi all.
I'm (still) designing a new Canvas API (http://gulik.pbwiki.com/Canvas).
When describing screen coordinates, which is a better term to use: "location" or "position"? Is there a technical difference between these words that I don't know about?
Gulik.
-- http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg http://gulik.pbwiki.com/
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.8 - Release Date: 1/15/2009 12:00 AM