Henrik.Gedenryd at lucs.lu.se
Fri Sep 8 16:19:15 UTC 2000
>> 2. It would make certain tasks more difficult. Presently it is possible to
>> delete a morph and later add it somewhere (where it was originally or
>> someplace quite different) and all the submorphs are still attached.
> Euch. That ought to work via 'cut' rather than 'delete'. Delete carries
> a semantic expectation of removing, destroying, getting rid of, etc.
Hmm, in the context of Morphic, the meaning of delete as it is makes perfect
Also, I don't really see the need for also removing submorphs in the first
place, because if only the deleted morph holds references to them, and it is
permanently sent into oblivion, then gc will eat them too. This is the
normal Smalltalk semantic for deleting imho. In other words, the semantic
expectation widely thought to have been described by Tim.
To remove the submorphs would seem to be the equivalent of nil:ing out the
fields of an object which no other object referenced in the first place
What was the context that made <the original poster> need this additional
submorph deletion in the first place?
More information about the Squeak-dev