Torsten.Bergmann at phaidros.com wrote:

> Open a new TextMorph, enter 1 inspect and select the text.
> Press Cmd-6 (Alt+6) and select active. You can now click on the text
> and it gets evaluated.

    A while back I implemented some new type of active texts: print-it and grab-it.
print-it just printed the result of evaluating the clicked text (like print-it ugh!) and
grab-it evaluated the text and attached the result to the hand morph... I'm not sure
if it was good or not, this project fell in history-land, because I started using MW
for everything, and forget about everything else. I don't think this was something
good, because print-its and grab-its were good for documenting and examples...
    If anybody asks for it, I'll see if this changesets still work in 2.8a, and then I'll
re-post them (The Project was named TextAttributes, and it's still available in
http://www.sugarweb.com, and http://www.dm.uba.ar/MathMorphs [newest])

> This also works in Workspaces - here you can mark pieces
> of text as links to classes, URL's, doIt's, ...

    Workspaces and BookMorphs too as I recall.

> without confusing him if you always send #inspect afterwards. Then
> we could provide a workspace for beginners like Ivan Tomek mentioned.

    In this way he'll learn the use of #inspect, it's not a bad idea.

> Gerardo Richarte wrote:
> >Have you ever tried MorphicWrappers (I'm feeling like I'm going to make
> >everybody skip my messages if I keep talking about MWs... sorry)
>
> Gerardo - this is'nt true. I like morphic wrappers and I really
> would like to see MW in the normal squeak release. (I think a lot of people
> like it also).

    Wow! thanks a lot!

> But it should be an option If the morphic world supports "typing in the
> air".

    I already heard this, and it's pretty simple to do (just a Preferences something
ifTrue: [^super message] in some method related to keyboard handling in
PasteUpMorph, I'll do it. But anyway, I don't understand why this is a desirable
feature, can't you just not type in the air? (I really don't understand the difference,
it may be something related to scripting, which I don't use.  m?)

> Maybe ClassWrappers could also be extended to support relationships
> (lines and wires like in PWM 6) for inheritance. Could be the startpoint for
> a small Squeak Case tool.
>
> What do you all think about this ?

    I like the idea! we thought about using some OMT notation (like the one used in
Design Patterns) and about doing this in two steps (to help the programmer) first,
you draw the relations (lines), and then when we understand how all this works,
we try to automate this with some basic Type Inference... but by now, it's not
very useful 'cos it's just an idea, that needs some inexistent time... )-:

    Inexistent Bye!
    Richie++

--
A390 1BBA 2C58 D679 5A71 - 86F9 404F 4B53 3944 C2D0
Investigacion y Desarrollo - CoreLabs - Core SDI
http://www.core-sdi.com




--- For a personal reply use gera at core-sdi.com