A morphic idea
Daniel Allan Joyce
daniel.a.joyce at worldnet.att.net
Fri Aug 20 04:35:12 UTC 1999
"Raab, Andreas" wrote:
> > Why don't all morphs know how to transform themselves? Could we
> > sublcless all morphs that need rotation from Transform morph? Shouldn't
> > a morph be able to transform itself without the need of the halo, or
> > reparenting ( thus messing up the button calls...)? What would be a good
> > way to do this?
> I actually want to do this for quite some time and it is not *that* hard -
> simply add a transformation as an optional property of a morph (e.g., store
> it in the otherProperties dictionary to avoid the space overhead) and fix
> the methods to be aware of a possible transformation. The latter is the
> actual problem - there are *many* subclasses of Morph and it would require
> some lots of changes throughout the entire Morphic class hierarchy.
Well, I'm bored, so I'll take a crack at it. Just tell me what I need
to be aware of...
Problem areas? Places to look in Morphic? Just a few pointers, cuz,
well, thats what object explorer is for... :)
The changes may or may not be minor, depending on reuse...
I've got my coworkers Ohhing at work when I show them Morphic as
compared to say Java... :D
Like rotating a list, and having it still work...
Will the Unix versions ever get faster? Squeak seems dirt slow under
Linux, and with SHM enabled, some color depths do not work... :/
More information about the Squeak-dev