Hi!
For the last two years I have been writing code like: view edges: { obj1 -> obj2 . obj3 -> obj4 } from: #key to: #value.
I have checked your code but I am wondering whether I am the only one
I think it would be cool to be able to write: view edges: { obj1 -> obj2 . obj3 -> obj4 }
Does it make sense?
Cheers, Alexandre
Hi,
I would argue strongly against it, because you are overriding too much the meaning of #edges:. Instead, I would suggest adding a new selector called #edgesFromAssociations:.
Cheers, Doru
On 20 Jan 2011, at 14:33, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
Hi!
For the last two years I have been writing code like: view edges: { obj1 -> obj2 . obj3 -> obj4 } from: #key to: #value.
I have checked your code but I am wondering whether I am the only one
I think it would be cool to be able to write: view edges: { obj1 -> obj2 . obj3 -> obj4 }
Does it make sense?
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
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"From an abstract enough point of view, any two things are similar."
Good idea to do that, and good idea to do it with a new selector!
On 20 Jan 2011, at 10:41, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
I would argue strongly against it, because you are overriding too much the meaning of #edges:. Instead, I would suggest adding a new selector called #edgesFromAssociations:.
Cheers, Doru
On 20 Jan 2011, at 14:33, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
Hi!
For the last two years I have been writing code like: view edges: { obj1 -> obj2 . obj3 -> obj4 } from: #key to: #value.
I have checked your code but I am wondering whether I am the only one
I think it would be cool to be able to write: view edges: { obj1 -> obj2 . obj3 -> obj4 }
Does it make sense?
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
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"From an abstract enough point of view, any two things are similar."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- Johan Fabry jfabry@dcc.uchile.cl - http://dcc.uchile.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
I would argue strongly against it, because you are overriding too much the meaning of #edges:.
I agree. I was not sure if edges: should be overloaded or not. That's why I asked.
Instead, I would suggest adding a new selector called #edgesFromAssociations:.
Now in 2.41 of Mondrian. Tests have been added for this
Cheers, Alexandre
On 20 Jan 2011, at 14:33, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
Hi!
For the last two years I have been writing code like: view edges: { obj1 -> obj2 . obj3 -> obj4 } from: #key to: #value.
I have checked your code but I am wondering whether I am the only one
I think it would be cool to be able to write: view edges: { obj1 -> obj2 . obj3 -> obj4 }
Does it make sense?
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
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"From an abstract enough point of view, any two things are similar."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-
Alexandre Bergel -
Johan Fabry -
Tudor Girba