[Morphic] Do morphs have locations or do locations have morphs?

[Jerome Peace]

Do morphs have locations or do locations have morphs?

Actually the answer I came up with was that each has
the other.

Morphs don't have submorphs they have locations (this
makes them resemble very much a polygon morph.)
Locations in turn have morphs (for which they are a
reference point.)

This shift in thinking melts a ton of problems that
morphic ran into. Including flex morphs.

So each location is in a morph (or more precisely its
coordinate system. That is the locations reference
morph.

So each morph is at a location in higher submorph.

assertions

" each location in a most one morph"
"a morph can't be in two places at the same time"
"a location is a sublocation of its owner"
" each location in a morph belongs to that morph."

also:
"more that one morph may share a location."
"locations must be appropriate to their owners
co-ordinate system."
Essentially morphs and locations alternate in a
heirarchy tree.

You could have a morph with bare locations. In which
case it might display like a polygon would (one of my
fancier ones see:
http://209.143.91.36/super/724
PolyFix02-wiz).

Now I suspect doubling the depth of the tree will slow
the works down but this is too early in the process to
be concerned about speed. And if things work right
then they can be tweaked to speed things along.

The great advantage is the conceptual simplicity. And
the rightness of the model from a real world point of
view.


Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace





 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091