I am standing by Juan's proposal,
do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
francisco.garau at gmail.com
Wed Nov 1 02:42:46 UTC 2006
>> I wonder, what is the opinion of the Squeakland people?
>> The arguments for keeping etoys in Squeak seem even weaker to
>> me if the actual stakeholders do not state "yes, this is
>> important for us because we plan to keep our Squeakland fork
>> in sync with future Squeak versions". If this is not the case
>> it does not make sense to have a non maintained version in
>> the main image (and that is what we have now). If there are
>> people willing to remove etoys we should not miss the opportunity!
I also vote for a cleaner version of Morphic. But I think that it will be
less painfull if we take a different route. Instead of having an OldMorph
and doing the experiments on the (new) Morph class, I propose to leave that
class as it is and do the experiments on a new class (eg. SqMorph). Once we
get a nice and clean model, we can think on how to migrate the old morphs to
the new ones (if necessary).
Juan, I attach a ChangeSet that can be load on a 3.9 image. Unfortunately,
as the following workspace code shows, it's not fully working at the
moment... (maybe there is a missing method required by your new model in the
old Morph hierarchy).
sqWorld := PasteUpMorph new.
sqWorld extent: 300 at 300.
sqWorld addMorph: EllipseMorph new.
sqWorld addMorph: SqTestMorph new.
sqWorld halt openInWorld
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 67157 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20061101/38a5a8e7/SqMorph-Package.11.obj
More information about the Squeak-dev