[squeak-dev] The Trunk: Morphic-cmm.606.mcz
asqueaker at gmail.com
Sun Apr 1 16:49:21 UTC 2012
Dave, I appreciate your point about preferences. But where does this
leave the discussion?
Stéphane at least engaged, even if I didn't understand the logic
("Fine-tuning of Morph position"). You don't like my solution, but
offer no alternative nor even address the validity of my complaint.
Even if I don't gain this fix, I'd like to learn something from y'all.
I'm evaluating other solutions like whatever happened to that
preference which would put the halos *within* the morph's bounds
rather than outside..? Oh, maybe it was #haloEnclosesFullBounds
except that currently appears to do nothing. Could I fix that to
toggle halos being inset rather than outset? At least then the morph
would be under the hand for 'pick-up' and 'duplicate'..
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:52 PM, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:16:18AM -0500, Chris Muller wrote:
>> > As far as I am concerned, this change would completely break my code. I am
>> > strongly opposed to it.
>> Ok that's fine. The way it is now breaks my code, so perhaps a
>> preference can resolve our differences.
> Eeek! Please avoid adding another preference if at all possible. If
> different behavior is needed, surely there must be some way to achieve
> it without breaking backward compatibility. Preferences are great for
> tailoring look and feel and such, but not for specifying fundamental
> behavior that affects various subsystems in different ways.
> question: "why is my foo window acting wierd?"
> answer: "it must by the freeble preference, try setting it the other way"
> question: "ok, foo is working now, but what's up this other window, it's acting wierd now"
> answer: "oh yes of course, you should set freeble back the other way if you want to do that"
> question: "huh?!?"
More information about the Squeak-dev