Cool! It works for me.
dSMMatrix := DSMMatrix withNodes: #(#1 #2 #3)
edges: #(#(#1 #2) #(#2 #1) #(#3 #1)).
I was wondering why not to use the Mondrian convention for specifying edges.
In mondrian you can specify edges with:
view edges: nodes from: #selector1 to: #selector2.
For each node contained in nodes, it creates an edge going from 'node selector1'
to 'node selector2'. This is quite convenient, because I do not have to specify
how each edge is defined within the script. The domain I wish to represent is in charge of
defining the edges.
If you still wish to explicitly defining edges, you can always do:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
view shape rectangle size: 30; withText.
view nodes: (1 to: 3).
view shape arrowedLine.
view edges: {1 -> 2. 2 -> 1 . 3 ->1} from: #key to: #value.
view treeLayout
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Also, maybe it would be nice to have a DSMShape in Mondrian, that draw a DSM for a
particular node (e.g., a group of packages). But maybe this could be quite some work to
adapt your implementation.
Cheers,
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel
http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
"What is more important: To be happy, or to make happy?"
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch