>     >
>     >
>     > Could you give a few examples of where the arbitrary coordinate
>     > systems would actually be useful? This is the part I'm confused
>     about
>     > - you're focussing on them a lot, but I don't see why.
>     >
>     > I would have thought it would be up to the application to
>     provide the
>     > logorithmic coordinate mappings rather than the GUI.
>     >
>     That how it is usually done. So that code is repeated in various
>     applications, the behavior is neither consistent nor correct (see my
>     approach to pixel independent rendering), there is duplicated effort,
>     many bugs appears, etc. Please do read
>     http://www.jvuletich.org/Smalltalks2007/St2007VuletichMorphic3TalkProposal.pdf
>     . Also read
>     http://www.jvuletich.org/Morphic3/TheFutureOfTheGUI_02.html
>     and http://www.jvuletich.org/Morphic3/TheFutureOfTheGUI_032.html .
>     I try
>     to make my point there. I don't know what to say but repeat what I
>     wrote
>     there. If I'm not clear enough or you don't agree with me, tell me!
>
>
>
> Could you give some examples of where a non-linear coordinate system 
> would be useful? I don't understand why you would want them in the GUI 
> rather than the application.
Yes. Logarithmic scales in music and technical applications, pentagrams 
in music, geographic in maps, polar in math.
Having that in the GUI offers the same advantages of having Morphic 
instead of implementing an ad hoc idea of graphic object in each 
application.
>
> What other features does Morphic 3 have? All I'm seeing is "non-linear 
> coordinate systems".
>

Morph specification that is agnostic about pixels and resolution. This 
is the key to building GUIs that look good on screen with different dpi's.

Theorically correct antia aliasing ("the signal processing approach to 
anti aliasing").

Better design that current Morphic, with simpler and smaller code.


Cheers,
Juan Vuletich