[squeak-dev] The Inbox: EToys-hjh.333.mcz
David T. Lewis
lewis at mail.msen.com
Tue Jun 12 03:37:20 UTC 2018
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:29:49PM +0200, H. Hirzel wrote:
> On 6/11/18, Chris Cunningham <cunningham.cb at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:27 AM, K K Subbu <kksubbu.ml at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Monday 11 June 2018 06:24 PM, David T. Lewis wrote:
> >>> These two methods are sent by CircleMorph>>extent: in package Morphic-Basic,
> >>> so moving them from Etoys to Morphic seems the the right thing to do.
> >>> Does anyone disagree?
> >> rotationCenter is an optional not an intrinsic geometric property like
> >> bounds, extent etc. So should it be moved into the category "rotate scale
> >> and flex"?
> >> rotationCenter also works with other properties like forwardDirection etc.
> >> They should also be considered for merging into Morphic. In fact, all the
> >> methods in Etoys-geometry could be moved to Morph as they don't use
> >> anything specific to Etoys (player).
> > Looking at the definitions in the image, there are 4 definitions of these
> > methods. The 3 definitions NOT in Etoys are in the method category
> > 'geometry etoy'. So I'd suggest putting them there to at least have all of
> > them in the same place.
> So the proposal is to
> a) to move all from category '*Etoys-geometry* to category *geometry
> eToy* and then the two methods
> rotationCenter and rotationCenter:
> to category 'rotate scale and flex'
I think that Chris Cunningham is supporting your original proposal to move
rotationCenter and rotationCenter: from '*Etoys-geometry' in package Etoys
to 'geometry eToy' in package Morphic.
This seems right because it is consistent with other implementers of
rotationCenter and rotationCenter: in Morphic.
Subbu offered some additional suggestions, but let's get your original
fix into trunk first :-)
More information about the Squeak-dev