I'm not convinced by your argumentation.
Because
	#('a' 'b') collect: [:each | each asMorph]
would mean to me that you get StringMorph or some morph representation of the object.
If this is what you want why not but I thought you talk about container containee relationship/



Stef


On Mar 14, 2010, at 2:05 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:

> On 14 March 2010 14:40, stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Igor
>> 
>> I do not know (I'm dizzy after a couple of hours of bus) but
>> asMorph for me conveys the idea that we get a transformation of the receiver, while if this is just to
>> change the model of a morph why not model:
>> 
> Changing a model gives nothing:
> 
> morph := MyListMorph new.
> morph model: someModel.
> 
> now, since my morph is a list, it assumes that someModel object
> implements a protocol, which allows to extract the
> items ( #size, #at: etc).
> The question is, what you would do, if you want to represent each item
> in a list as a morph, so instead of:
> 
> strings := model items collect: [:each | each asString ].
> 
> you doing:
> 
> subMorphs := model items collect: [:each | each asMorph ].
> ...
> this gives you a freedom to pick any form how represent each item in a
> list, instead of bare strings.
> 
> 
>> 
>> Stef
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>