Hola,

the RTAlignment solution is more in line to what is happening with Roassal in general, e.g. you make a shape and then set different properties via different 1-argument keyword messages. So for consistency I would expect that (together with some sensible defaults) instead of the current API of TRConstraint.

On Jul 31, 2015, at 18:34, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel@me.com> wrote:

Hi!

It would be great to get feedback from you guys. 
We have the class TRConstraint that allows for roassal elements to be aligned (cf Section 10 in https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31543901/AgileVisualization/Roassal/0104-Roassal.html). 

Currently, you can write: 
TRConstraint use: centralDot alignFromTop: negativeElements

Which align all the elements contained in the collection negativeElements against a fix point, centralDot.
It looks pretty easy to read. However, the class TRConstraint has many methods (alignFromBottom:, alignFromLeft:, use: aShape alignFromBottom: shapes, …) which are essentially all duplicated code.

So, I though about creating a compact class, called RTAlignment. You can now write:
RTAlignment new elements: negativeElements; fixedElement: centralDot; top

But, I find that less nice to read. Any opinion?

Cheers,
Alexandre
-- 
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.



_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev



---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <---

Johan Fabry   -   http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD and RyCh labs  -  Computer Science Department (DCC)  -  University of Chile