30 Sep
2012
30 Sep
'12
8:45 p.m.
Hi,
I actually find it quite elegant as it is now.
The reasons are as follows:
1. there will be more scripts in the high level api than in the low
level one of Roassal
2. you can still make use of the roassal quite easily by specifying
"view raw" in all the low level commands (no need to store it in a
variable)
3. ideally, we should still have only one entry point to eliminate confusion
4. if you want to write a Roassal script, it will be longer and will
not fit in a block anyway. Thus, you would put the visualization in a
method and all you have to do is to pass "view raw" to it
Cheers,
Doru
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote:
For a long time I have had the code below linking Magritte-Roassal.
Originally I had expected ":view" to hold aROView, and it was a surprise
when I found out held aROMondrianViewBuilder instead. While it makes sense
to have had a drop in replacement for the Magritte-Mondrian, and it is
simple to get the ROView from the ROMondrianBuilder, it feels inelegant to
have to do this each time.
---
browser transmit
from: #pane1
to: #pane2
andShow:
[ :a |
a roassal
title: 'Instance Model Full View';
painting:
[ :view :selection | | rawView |
rawView := view raw.
...etc...
]
].
---
Looking in from outside and considering long term broadening use of Roassal
outside of Mondrian, it would "feel" better if ...
andShow: [ :a | a roassal....
passed aROView as a parameter to #painting, and the Mondrian drop-in
replacement to be something like ...
andShow: [ :a | a roassalMondrian
andShow: [ :a | a roMondrian
andShow: [ :a | a mondrianBuilder
which passed aROMondrianBuilder.
cheers -ben
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"