[squeak-dev] "position" or "location"?

Juan Vuletich juan at jvuletich.org
Sun Jan 18 15:11:58 UTC 2009

Hi Gulik,

Glad to know you're working on it. I'm not sure if your new Canvas will 
ever work together with Morphic 3, but even if not, I'm sure we can 
share ideas, may be algorithms and code.

In Morphic 3, I used the term "position" for coordinates (usually x at y) 
for some morph. I believe this is the usual term for this usual concept. 
I also wanted to have an object that fully specifies how a morph is 
located in some space. This includes a "position" together with the used 
extent, and an orientation angle. I called this objects "Location" (I 
have a class named Location).

I believe this makes for a nicer design that just having separated 
instvars in morphs, or a bounds rectangle as in Morphic 2.

I suggest then using "position", and perhaps adding the "location" 
concept if it fits your design. Anyway, if you come with better names, I 
could change mine.

Juan Vuletich

Ps: I agree with you. Lines are really rectangles. But only if they have 
square edges. A rectangle with "rounded corners" is not a rectangle anymore!

Michael van der Gulik wrote:
> Hi all.
> I'm (still) designing a new Canvas API (http://gulik.pbwiki.com/Canvas).
> When describing screen coordinates, which is a better term to use: 
> "location" or "position"? Is there a technical difference between 
> these words that I don't know about?
> Gulik.
> -- 
> http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg
> http://gulik.pbwiki.com/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG. 
> Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.8 - Release Date: 1/15/2009 12:00 AM

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list