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

[Juan Vuletich]

Jerome Peace escribió:
> 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.
>
>   
This sounds very similar to what I'm doing.
> 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."
>   
All these asserts are valid in Morphic 3, as it is today.
> Essentially morphs and locations alternate in a
> heirarchy tree.
>
>   
Here is an implementation difference. To me, a location is an ivar in a
Morph.
> 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
>
>   
I don't see the advantage of getting location in the morph tree, instead
of doing as I did. I also think that M3 is conceptually "right". What
problems do you see in M3? I saw PolyFix02-wiz. I like the WizagonMorph
behavior. It is the one I believe correct. I you look at M3, my morphs
rotate the same way, but resize slightly differently. With my
implementation of coordinate systems, the code is much simpler, there's
no need to go down every submorph to fix its location. Please play a
while with my TestMorphs.

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich