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... 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
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:34 PM, 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... ).
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
TRConstraing align: negativeElements using: (RTAlignment top against:
centralDot) ?
From your original list, I'd be more likely to want to use your first
example. But then, I'm used to lots of methods.
-cbc
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... 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 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
-
Alexandre Bergel -
Chris Cunningham -
Johan Fabry