[UI] Just a thought...

[Igor Stasenko]

2008/4/18 Michael van der Gulik <mikevdg at gmail.com>:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:15 AM, Gary Chambers <gazzaguru2 at btinternet.com>
> wrote:
> > It might be nice that we have some more paint rules in BitBlt. A
> "fuzz/blur"
> > effect would be nice and take the load off the Squeak code for such
> things.
> >
> > Just wanting to get more contemporary with the ui look without large
> > performance penalties.
> >
> > Not quite liking the way that effects are hidden behind canvas (leading to
> a
> > bloated interface, perhaps (c.f. #drawImage... #drawTranslucentImage...)).
> > Not sure where the balance should be. Looks like a choke-point that is too
> > useful to bypass on a case-by-case basis.
> >
>
>
> If you were to implement some more interesting effects in BitBLT, how would
> you make sure that Morphs that use this code will still work on other
> targets such as Rome, Postscript Canvases, VNC etc?
>

1. BitBlt already contains many blitting rules which is problematic to
support on different back ends.
2. In future, i suppose, we need a more functional approach how to
define drawing operations.
To describe a blitting/drawing operations with classes/objects not
with integer numbers, like we currently have, which is meaningless and
hard to determine how they working.

Drawing operation should be represented by object -  a
function(source, destination, arguments..), where function is fully
reflected in language.


> Gulik
>
>
> --
> http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg
> http://gulik.pbwiki.com/
> _______________________________________________
>  UI mailing list
>  UI at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>  http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ui
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.