[Morphic] Morph 3.0

[Juan Vuletich]

Hi Jerome!

I'm so glad you're looking at my work! Please note that my current email 
is the sender of this message, juan at jvuletich.org. The addresses 
@uolsinectis are no longer in use. The rest of the answer is inline with 
your comments.

Jerome Peace escribió:
> Hi Juan,
>
> Two thought have just come together and I am excited.
>   
:)
> >From morphic 3.o I was looking at the ivars for
> Location
> and comparing them to problems I've been working thru
> with making polygons tilt just like rectanges and
> ellipses.
>
> The problem I noticed with Location was that you had
> angle but no scale.
>
> >From my work with polygons I know that angle and scale
> are natural partners.
>   
Well, having scale means that somewhere you also have the natural size, 
i.e. the size when scale is 1. I think that rotating an object is 
something natural in the real world, but applying a scale factor is not. 
What would be the meaning for a scale factor in M3 morphs?
> xextent and yextent are not substitutes. Indeed they
> cause ambiguity because unless you look at the works
> you wonder if you turn the morph first then apply the
> extent scalers or the other way around. 
>   
In my opinion, rotating an object does not change width and height. 
Let's suppose you have a morph with angle zero. You adjust the width to 
be w1 and the height to be h1. The width w1 is measured along the X axis 
of the owner and the height h1 is measured along the Y axis of the 
owner. Then we rotate the morph, for example, by 30 degrees. If we 
measure the extent along the X axis of the owner, it is no longer w1, 
and the extent along the Y axis is no longer h1. However, these are not 
the width and height of the morph, which are the same as before. In 
other words: my height is about 5'6". If I lay on a bed, my height is 
not 1'. It is the same as before. Do you agree?
> What I found was in any given operation you had to
> choose rotate and scale 
> or 
> stretch and reflect (That's what should happen when
> one of the extent scalers go negative)
>
>   
I don't understand this. Please elaborate.
> The other decision I realized from my work with
> polygons was to get polygons to truely rotate (with
> their submorphs doing the same thing) I had to collect
> the submorphs refernce locations and subject them to
> the same transformation as the polygon (rotate and
> scale or stretch and reflect) 
>   
Well, this is not needed in M3, as the location is always relative to 
the owner. If you change the ivar angle in the location in the owner, 
all the submorphs rotate correctly. You can try it yourself in my image, 
with the halo.
> So the insight as I put your work and mine together
> came in the form of a question:
>
> Do morphs have locations or do locations have morphs?
>
>   
Interesting. I always thought that morphs have locations. What would be 
the consequences of the other point of view?
> Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace
>
>   
Cheers,
Juan Vuletich