2009/8/2 Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>:
> Juan Vuletich wrote:
>>
>> I guess I was being too optimistic. I honestly tried to do it. First I
>> tried to file in the Editor classes from Cuis. Unfortunately, they are
>> differences that make them incompatible, for example in NewParagraph.
>
> I did it slightly differently and had no problems:
> * File out Editor, TextEditor, file those into Squeak.
> * Make a subclass of TextMorph called TextEditorMorph
> * Give it the editorClass TextEditor, open it, edit it
> At this point I had one blow-up resulting from missing
> NewParagraph>>replaceFrom:to:with:. I added it and everything seemed to
> work.
>
> I then upped the ante a little and replaced TextMorph>>editorClass with
> TextEditor. And guess what, it seems to be working quite well, except from a
> few issues like:
> * One cannot get rid of text selection by clicking inside the old selection.
> I'm presuming that this is done for mobile devices but we should have a
> preference for governing that.
> * Programming short cuts do not work (browse senders, implementors etc). How
> are shortcuts expected to work here? Should these be in a subclass? (some
> advice would be welcome).
>
> Other than that I haven't found any problems whatsoever yet.
>
>> I know. Perhaps my anti aliased StrikeFonts could be included in Squeak. I
>> don't know how to handle the creation of instances. Monticello can only
>> handle code, right? No live instances or binary (bmp) files?
>
> We can work this out. In the worst case, initializer methods can carry code
> as well, along the lines of:
>
> blankForm
>  "Created using:
>    (ByteArray streamContents:[:s|
>        PNGReadWriter
>            putForm: (Form extent: 100 at 100 depth: 32)
>            onStream: s]) asString base64Encoded.
>  "
>  ^Form fromBinaryStream: (
> 'iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAGQAAABkCAYAAABw4pVUAAAAnklEQVR4XuXBMQEAAADCoPVP
> bQsfIJ/P5/P5fD6fz+fz+Xw+n8/n8/l8Pp/P5/P5fD6fz+fz+Xw+n8/n8/l8Pp/P5/P5fD6f
> z+fz+Xw+n8/n8/l8Pp/P5/P5fD6fz+fz+Xw+n8/n8/l8Pp/P5/P5fD6fz+fz+Xw+n8/n8/l8
> Pp/P5/P5fD6fz+fz+Xw+n8/n8/l8Pp/P5/P5fD6fz3c1nKQAAZiW0oUAAAAASUVORK5CYII='
>   ) base64Decoded asByteArray readStream.
>
> If we stick this into a temporary class that gets deleted in a later update
> then the overhead is temporary.
>

Btw, about such overhead.. Recently i'm also added a data blob in a method.
And i thought, that it would be cool to not persist the data as a
code, but instead
put it into the comment.
So, a generic method , carrying a data blob could be just:

someData
"iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAGQAAABkCAYAAABw4pVUAAAAnklEQVR4XuXBMQEAAADCoPVP
bQsfIJ/P5/P5fD6fz+fz+Xw+n8/n8/l8Pp/P5/P5fD6fz+fz+Xw+n8/n8/l8Pp/P5/P5fD6f
z+fz+Xw+n8/n8/l8Pp/P5/P5fD6fz+fz+Xw+n8/n8/l8Pp/P5/P5fD6fz+fz+Xw+n8/n8/l8
Pp/P5/P5fD6fz+fz+Xw+n8/n8/l8Pp/P5/P5fD6fz3c1nKQAAZiW0oUAAAAASUVORK5CYII=
"

in this way given blob is not part of an image, it is a part of source files.
And, by having a method source, it is easy to read a data from it.
How do you like the idea?

> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.