On Saturday 15 February 2003 12:04 pm, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Frameworks are designed to be flexible, to allow for experimentation.
> If you can build something with the same power and extensibility by
> using simpler means I'm all ears. Otherwise I see the above as a
> needlessly naive (and somewhat bizarre) comment ;-)
>

	What I'm saying is that it seems needlessly complex for the 
'flexibility' it gives you. The amount of up-down-sideways message 
passing, just makes it had to control conceptually.

> Conceptually, yes. So does Squeak. It merely doesn't provide you with
> a naive implementation. And I would be quite surprised to see that
> kind of naive implementation you seem to be proposing in "most other"
> frameworks. Show me one.
>

	I'm not arguing for naive, I'm arguing for clean, sane, easy to 
understand, and easy to write tools that can use it automatically ( 
populating menus to select event gen, etc )....

> This you gotta try ;-) How about ... having a "quit" button behind
> some other morph and trying to pick up this morph?! Bye, bye... No, I
> really don't think so.

	What about 'viewglass' morphs ala parc? That you drag over other morphs 
to show some 'internal' state. IE, restaurant listings overlapping a 
map morph, etc. You might want the clicks to pass through one morph, 
and end up in the other.

	It may not always be useful, but it should be doable for the cases 
where it is useful.

>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>