Do morphs have locations or do locations have morphs?

Do morphs have locations or do locations have morphs?

Actually the answer I came up with was that each has
the other.

Morphs don't have submorphs they have locations (this
makes them resemble very much a polygon morph.)
Locations in turn have morphs (for which they are a
reference point.)

This shift in thinking melts a ton of problems that
morphic ran into. Including flex morphs.

So each location is in a morph (or more precisely its
coordinate system. That is the locations reference
morph.

So each morph is at a location in higher submorph.

assertions

" each location in a most one morph"
"a morph can't be in two places at the same time"
"a location is a sublocation of its owner"
" each location in a morph belongs to that
morph."

also:
"more that one morph may share a location."
"locations must be appropriate to their owners
co-ordinate system."
Essentially morphs and locations alternate in a
heirarchy tree.

You could have a morph with bare locations. In which
case it might display like a polygon would (one of my
fancier ones see:
http://209.143.91.36/s
uper/724
PolyFix02-wiz).

Now I suspect doubling the depth of the tree will slow
the works down but this is too early in the process to
be concerned about speed. And if things work right
then they can be tweaked to speed things along.

The great advantage is the conceptual simplicity. And
the rightness of the model from a real world point of
view.


Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace





 
____________________________________________________________
________________________
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo!
Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=3965460
91
_______________________________________________
Morphic mailing list
Morphiclists.squeakfoundation.org
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mail
man/listinfo/morphic

Jerome Peace escribió:
> Do morphs have locations or do locations have morphs?
>
> Actually the answer I came up with was that each has
> the other.
>
> Morphs don't have submorphs they have locations (this
> makes them resemble very much a polygon morph.)
> Locations in turn have morphs (for which they are a
> reference point.)
>
> This shift in thinking melts a ton of problems that
> morphic ran into. Including flex morphs.
>
> So each location is in a morph (or more precisely its
> coordinate system. That is the locations reference
> morph.
>
> So each morph is at a location in higher submorph.
>
>   
This sounds very similar to what I'm doing.
> assertions
>
> " each location in a most one morph"
> "a morph can't be in two places at the same
time"
> "a location is a sublocation of its owner"
> " each location in a morph belongs to that
morph."
>
> also:
> "more that one morph may share a location."
> "locations must be appropriate to their owners
> co-ordinate system."
>   
All these asserts are valid in Morphic 3, as it is today.
> Essentially morphs and locations alternate in a
> heirarchy tree.
>
>   
Here is an implementation difference. To me, a location is
an ivar in a
Morph.
> You could have a morph with bare locations. In which
> case it might display like a polygon would (one of my
> fancier ones see:
> http://209.143.91.36/s
uper/724
> PolyFix02-wiz).
>
> Now I suspect doubling the depth of the tree will slow
> the works down but this is too early in the process to
> be concerned about speed. And if things work right
> then they can be tweaked to speed things along.
>
> The great advantage is the conceptual simplicity. And
> the rightness of the model from a real world point of
> view.
>
>
> Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace
>
>   
I don't see the advantage of getting location in the morph
tree, instead
of doing as I did. I also think that M3 is conceptually
"right". What
problems do you see in M3? I saw PolyFix02-wiz. I like the
WizagonMorph
behavior. It is the one I believe correct. I you look at M3,
my morphs
rotate the same way, but resize slightly differently. With
my
implementation of coordinate systems, the code is much
simpler, there's
no need to go down every submorph to fix its location.
Please play a
while with my TestMorphs.

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich

_______________________________________________
Morphic mailing list
Morphiclists.squeakfoundation.org
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mail
man/listinfo/morphic

On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 01:36:09PM -0700, Jerome Peace
wrote:
> assertions
> 
> " each location in a most one morph"

This assertion appears to conflict with

> "a location is a sublocation of its owner"

and 

> "more that one morph may share a location."

if one is using world-relative locations. Is this not the
case?
What is a location? Parent morph + relative 2d location?

Also, what is in a Parent morph? location + rotation + shear
+
scale?  or is there some more general transform system that
could handle funky stuff like jiggly morphs, or allow morphs
to
be 2.5d? That would be nice.

-- 
Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpr
ess.com/
Help improve Squeak Documentation: http://wiki.squeak.
org/squeak/808
_______________________________________________
Morphic mailing list
Morphiclists.squeakfoundation.org
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mail
man/listinfo/morphic