One thing you might consider is that your list should probably be of
domain objects, represented by morphs, not a list of morphs. You might
find the SM package ColorDevTools (CDT) intersting.

I think this is generally an important direction, because more
expressive lists would make many interfaces more useful.

Daniel

tbr at mannynkapy.net (Tom Rushworth) wrote:
> On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 01:58:20PM +0100, Paul Chapman wrote:
> > Are there any plans to build versions of the various list morphs
> > which draw their rows directly instead of using a submorph for
> > every row?  For large lists the current implementation is very slow!
> 
> There are some LargeList enhancements floating around.  Check the
> list archives and the swiki.  My apologies for not having the
> references handy.
> > 
> > Cheers, Paul
> > 
> While we're on the subject of ListMorphs, all of the list morphs seem
> to expect the submorphs to be string/text morphs, and seem to provide
> the submorphs with (effectively) infinite width.  I want to display a
> list of more complicated morphs where each submorph is a window with
> 3 (or more) panes.  I want the submorphs to be laid out proportionally
> in the horizontal direction, but to be fixed size and scrolled in the
> vertical direction.  (For anyone who has used Quicken, think of how the
> list of transactions in an account is displayed.)
> 
> I just got such a morph working yesterday, but I had to make changes
> all over the place :(.  Now that I've proved to myself I can do it :),
> I can ask the list: is there an obvious, easy way to do this?  One that
> doesn't involve a dozen new classes and changes to many old classes?
> 
> Also, what should this morph be called?  I've called it the
> "PluggableMorphListMorh" in the sense of pluggable(MorphList)morph, not
> because I like that name (I don't) but because I couldn't think of anything
> better.  Suggestions anyone?
> 
> If anyone's interested, I'll post it once I get rid all the cruft and
> dead end code from the things I tried that didn't work.  Right at the
> moment I don't think my pride could handle someone else looking at it :).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- 
> Tom Rushworth