- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] [bloc] shape size?

by Igor Stasenko

On 3 April 2016 at 13:27, Aliaksei Syrel <alex.syrel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > It is indeed logical :) > > However, in most UI of applications (in web, mobile) it is extremely rare > that clipping or event handling areas differ from drawing one (visual one - > one that user sees in the end). > > But wait, what i saw in this thread: Stef presented a simple use case - he wants to draw a rectangle plus circle or a line.. and got lost.. confused and frustrated. And i am far to see how such use case can be called something exceptionally rare. Do you? The goal of good design is to make common cases extremely simple, non-common cases - harder. But not impossible. And by impossible i mean not that you cannot do anything by yourself, but what you can do using existing framework. The fact that i can override and rewrite anything and make it my way - is not a valid argument. Yes, i made a slight detour in discussion, to demonstrate that actually single shape per morph is no go.. And there's multiple shapes can be involved and each for own role. And allowing only a single one feels a bit limiting, as to me. But of course i understand, that it is not so common, except when i wanna draw a label on top of background, which requires at least two shapes. :) As for clipping/ui shapes, i don't understand, it is really not that hard to do, i.e.: clippingShape ^ clippingShape ifNil: [ self shape ] .. which means you can still have a single shape by default, but in case you need - here you go, you free to define own. But anyways.. All i want is to be convinced that my fears are not that bad. Btw, i have a question about your statement, quote: You don't want to draw a shape, you configure it. Shape can not be drawn, it is not an AthensPath. Hmm. At least in Athens, by design AthensPath is a shape. It is a shape, that is drawn by Athens. Path is just a single concrete case how you could define a shape. Rectangle is another one.. And there's no limitation in Athens, what may represent a shape, as long as it conforms to AthensShape protocol, which also means, if you look at it, it has #paintFillsUsing:on: , which implies, that it actually should know how to draw itself. And of course, since it knows what areas it covers it has insights about own geometry.. but such details are not exposed to outside, since it would be very hard to encode all possible ways to represent shape(s) by some kind of common data, like paths. Are you talking about Bloc shapes? Then it is indeed a pity, if such statement are correct in terms of Bloc. Because then it introducing another kind of shapes in addition to existing kind of shapes introduced by Athens.. something different and not really compatible. Which serves as a source of confusion. I am not arguing, maybe such thing was necessary, but i would, at least then call it different to avoid potential confusion. Do you agree with that and also that in most cases we want to change them > all together just sending one message? :) > > Cheers > Alex > On Apr 3, 2016 12:20 PM, "Denis Kudriashov" <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> 2016-04-03 11:08 GMT+02:00 Aliaksei Syrel <alex.syrel(a)gmail.com>: >> >>> If you want to change clicking behaviour you need to override one single >>> method. >>> >>> Everything you wrote with unreadable amount of characters is for nothing. >>> >> I see clearly point of Igor. And for me it feels very logical. With such >> design you can lively change clipping area and interaction area for any >> morph (element) on screen. >> >> -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

April 3, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] GSoC alternative: SOCIS

by Skip

Or a project for SciSmalltalk? That seems like the most relevant of all proposals on gsoc.pharo.org. Here's a list of mentoring organizations of last year: http://sophia.estec.esa.int/socis2015/?q=node/13 Note GNU Octave. Or IPFS, _interplanetary_ file system ;). But that is taking the name too literally, I think :p. 2016-04-03 11:52 GMT+02:00 Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com>: > Looks interesting. But then we need someone to âsellâ pharo as a > space-related OS projectâ¦ I mean, itâs not hard, just talk about remote > debugging and live update (project of Max Mattone). But someone has to do > it. And also someone has to propose the projects around this topics. > > Cheers. > Uko > > On 02 Apr 2016, at 19:23, Skip <skippetie(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I just came across an alternative to GSoC called SOCIS. > It's run by the ESA (European Space Agency): > > http://sophia.estec.esa.int/socis/ > > Maybe you can try applying there? Deadline is April 10th. > > And maybe you all know already about this, in that case feel free to let > this thread die :) > > Best wishes, > > Skip > > >

April 3, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] [bloc] shape size?

by Aliaksei Syrel

It is indeed logical :) However, in most UI of applications (in web, mobile) it is extremely rare that clipping or event handling areas differ from drawing one (visual one - one that user sees in the end). Do you agree with that and also that in most cases we want to change them all together just sending one message? :) Cheers Alex On Apr 3, 2016 12:20 PM, "Denis Kudriashov" <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > 2016-04-03 11:08 GMT+02:00 Aliaksei Syrel <alex.syrel(a)gmail.com>: > >> If you want to change clicking behaviour you need to override one single >> method. >> >> Everything you wrote with unreadable amount of characters is for nothing. >> > I see clearly point of Igor. And for me it feels very logical. With such > design you can lively change clipping area and interaction area for any > morph (element) on screen. > >

April 3, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] [bloc] shape size?

by Denis Kudriashov

2016-04-02 16:56 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: > Hi > > I want a square morph with a circle or a line at 45 degree inside > Now I do not get it. > > I thought that I needed to specialize drawOnAthensCanvas: so I did > > BlCell >> drawOnAthensCanvas: aCanvas > > super drawOnAthensCanvas: aCanvas. > aCanvas > drawShape: (BlShape new > strokePaint: > (BlStrokePaint new > paint: (BlColorPaint new color: > (Color blue)); > width: 15); > path: BlCirclePath new). > Can it be implemented by special kind of BiPath? it will draw rectangle and circle inside.

April 3, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] [bloc] shape size?

by Denis Kudriashov

Hi 2016-04-03 11:08 GMT+02:00 Aliaksei Syrel <alex.syrel(a)gmail.com>: > If you want to change clicking behaviour you need to override one single > method. > > Everything you wrote with unreadable amount of characters is for nothing. > I see clearly point of Igor. And for me it feels very logical. With such design you can lively change clipping area and interaction area for any morph (element) on screen.

April 3, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] [bloc] shape size?

by Tudor Girba

Hi Alex, Thanks for this :) Cheers, Doru > On Apr 3, 2016, at 12:14 PM, Aliaksei Syrel <alex.syrel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Igor > > I would like to apologize for my bad tone in previous email. I misunderstood your good will to help and improve design by finding special cases that we didn't manage to cover. I indeed would like to show you that design sounds. > > Let's play with more concrete examples. To start let's take one mentioned by you, about rectangle morph that answers to events only inside a circle. > > I will create a repo for PUBLIC bloc experiments so that all of us could try it in practice. > > Your help is highly appreciated and we are happy to see you :) > > Cheers > > > > On 3 April 2016 at 12:08, Aliaksei Syrel <alex.syrel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > If you want to change clicking behaviour you need to override one single method. > > it is not about just clicking behavior. Sure i can override every single method to get behavior i want, at any point in system i need. > Then what is purpose of making any design, if it all goes down to 'oh.. if you don't like something , just go and do it youself'? > Seriously? > Everything you wrote with unreadable amount of characters is for nothing. > > > Haha.. If you can't read something, it does not means, that there's nothing. It just you cannot read. > > All mentioned stuff is possible. > > Details, that statement requires. You seem don't want to demonstrate that your concept is sound. Because i wanna see how it goes.. So far i have doubts about it, which i tried to formulate in previous posts.. i may not understand in it something, something you understand.. and i wanna see where i wrong. > And in response i got nothing, no arguments, zero. This is exactly, what called 'nothing'. > > On Apr 3, 2016 10:30 AM, "Igor Stasenko" <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 3 April 2016 at 10:18, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > Hi Igor, > > Thanks for this nice description :). > > Indeed, the Shape in Bloc is primarily a clipping shape that knows how to draw the path around and to fill itself. Of course, it also handles the interaction. > > When you want to have a composition, you are encouraged to create multiple elements (morphs). This is a way to handle both more complicated interaction and more complicated drawing. Of course, you can still override the drawing method and draw whatever you want on it, but we would rather have a simple composition. > > The disadvantage of this design is that indeed, is that it is not sophisticated. The advantage of this design is that it is not sophisticated :) and you get only one tree of compositions for the elements without another level of composition at the shape level. The main reason we went this route is because we want Bloc to pose as little constraints for the things built on top as possible without losing power. > > Does this make sense for you? > > It makes sense, sure thing. > But it does not solves the problem. > As i explained before, a single shape cannot serve as both clipping, UI handling and drawing all together. Because it is three separate roles, which is good if they coincide, but causing a lot of problems, when they are not. > It is not matters how you compose or decompose shapes.. there is simply no composition which can turn rectangle into, lets say circle. > it simply impossible to construct required clipping shape, or UI shape from set of drawing shapes, in case when they are completely different from each other. > > For instance if i want morph with rectangular appearance (rectangle shape) to respond on clicks only within circular subregion inside that rectangle, i will be forced to create a submorph and then rewire event handling back to its parent. And that happens every time i need a different shape for mouse clicks than shape for drawing. Now add clipping here... and you will get a nightmare of bells and whistles, composing and whatsnot. > > As for 'sophisticated'.. let see: > so, in my proposition, i do: > - draw rectangle and circle inside > - define that circle as UI shape > - define that rectangle as clipping shape > done. > In your design, i have to: > - make a morph with rectangular shape > - create submorph with circular shape > - wire clicking of a submorph to propagate event to its parent > > or think about some kind of composition.. composing what with what? > does it union of circle and rectangle? or intersection? depending the way how you composing those two shapes you receive one or another outcome.. > and that event wiring is extra work.. > So, it may look that what i proposing is more sophisticated.. > But i just wanna see a separate roles taking own places, nothing else. > I do not inventing new concepts, that wasn't there before: > - you need clipping, > - you need drawing > - you need UI handling > > You see, it is not a framework, that forcing you to be 'sophisticated' .. it is domain itself. It draws a clear border between things that are optional and things that are absolutely necessary, since they are separate concepts and roles. > > You simply cannot represent an infinite dimension of drawing compositions by a composition of UI elements. Only the simplest cases.. > It is big mistake to imply that anything that you drawing on screen must be a full-blown UI element (which is morph is) or their composition. > It makes you quite limited in terms of what you can draw and what not. > Morph is UI building brick.. but it is not graphical building brick.. making such parallel gives more troubles than it solves. > > To me concept where morph==shape==clipping shape==ui shape is just: > - you can have bike of any color, as long as it's black. > > Can you enlighten me, what composition of black bikes can result in a green one? > > > Cheers, > Doru > > > > On Apr 3, 2016, at 6:38 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Oh, yeah.. i missed one more kind of shape, you may want to introduce: > > - clipping shape. > > > > For optimizing drawing operations, you may want to define a region, which guarantees, that anything you paint, nothing outside defined region will affect the screen. Because else, you will allow morph to render anywhere and therefore, it is really hard for UI subsystem to account damage on the screen. > > But once you define such shape, then you can clearly tell, which portion of the screen may or may not be damaged and therefore act accordingly. > > > > So, overall when we talking about shapes, we need to talk about three different kinds of them: > > > > - UI interaction shape > > - clipping shape > > - shape(s) used to draw > > > > those three may or may not coincide into single one, depending on complexity and what you wanna do.. > > But they can be completely different from each other and in order to avoid confusion and frustration, i would really introduce them in such manner, that users have clear vision on what happens with their morphs and how to achieve what they want. > > > > Clearly, a single #shape: is not enough, if you want a non-conflicting representation of these concepts in UI. > > > > > > On 3 April 2016 at 07:15, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 2 April 2016 at 20:59, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > > > > > > Le 2/4/16 17:31, Aliaksei Syrel a Ã©crit : > >> You don't want to draw a shape, you configure it. Shape can not be drawn, it is not an AthensPath. > >> > >> cell shape: (BlShape new > >> path: BlCirclePath new; > >> strokePaint: (BlStrokePaint new > >> paint: Color blue; > >> width: 1)). > >> cell extent: 50@50. > >> > > > > But this is not what I want! As I mentioned in a mail that was sent but never arrived. > > I want a square and this is why I did > > > > BlCell>>initialize > > super initialize. > > self > > shape: > > (BlShape new > > fillPaint: (BlColorPaint new color: (Color yellow)); > > path: BlRectanglePath new); > > extent: self extent > > > > > > then I want to draw something extra this is why I overrode drawOnAthensCanvas: aCanvas > > > > Now I stop but I find bloc too complex. > > > > Sorry but I cannot lose time like that and just get frustrated at the end. > > I will use the athens canvas directly and stay in morph for now. > > > > > > I think there's a bit of misconception. > > In Athens, shape representing any area you wanna fill with paint. Period. > > It can be of any complexity, self-intersecting yadda yadda.. the main point is that it defines a region(s), that going to be filled with chosen paint during draw operation. > > From perspective of morphs, as UI elements, most of them require some shape(s) to represent themselves on the screen. But there are morphs, that while still taking part in UI, don't need any shapes since they never drawn on the screen. > > Another point is that nowhere said that morph can be represented by a one and only one shape period. Because as in your case, you want to, say, draw rectangle with paint A, and circle with paint B, then you basically need two different shapes (overlapping or not - not really matters) to represent morph on the screen. > > > > So, the first point in misconception comes from 'self shape:'.. > > It is wrong from that perspective, because it is all fine, when morph using only single shape to represent itself.. but when you need multiple shapes, you are in trouble. It at least misleading, because provoking you to think that there can be only one. > > > > Then you need to invent a 'composite shape' that basically a collection of shapes for a single morph, that will represent it on the screen. > > > > A tangent to that, is that since most of morphs has mostly static geometry/topology and changing it very rarely and much less often comparing to drawing same shape(s) over and over again, it is right thing to define and initialize shape(s) and reuse them later in #draw method. Since you don't change shape(s), you don't have to generate new object(s). > > From that perspective, this is nice, resource saving, approach. > > But let us not forget, that this is just a 'statistical observation' and hence good to be a default setup. But it should not dictate you the rule(s). > > You should still be able to define shape(s) on the fly or change it on the fly, dynamically. > > > > Another problematic is that you may want to use different shapes for > > a) painting morph on screen > > b) defining geometry of the morph for UI interactions. > > As an example, let say, you want a rectangle with circle in centre on the screen, but also want morph to react on mouse over/clicks only if mouse cursor is inside a circle, but not when it's over an area covered by rectangle. > > > > What it means, that from UI perspective, you want from morph to define its shape, lets call it 'UI interaction shape'.. and from that perspective 'self shape:' is a good choice. But as example says, it has nothing to do with 'drawing shape(s)', which may or may not coincide with shape you using for UI interaction(s). > > > > Because it defines an area, where UI stuff could happen. And indeed, you really need one, and only one. You don't need multiple shapes there, since it serves to answer a simple question: 'are my mouse in interesting region or not'?. > > Like in your case, when you having box with circle inside , which is two shapes, but only one shape that can define an interesting region, it could be: > > - intersection of > > - union > > - subtraction > > > > And that could be completely different from shape(s) you may need to draw it on the screen. > > > > Stef > > > >> On Apr 2, 2016 4:57 PM, "stepharo" <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> I want a square morph with a circle or a line at 45 degree inside > >> Now I do not get it. > >> > >> I thought that I needed to specialize drawOnAthensCanvas: so I did > >> > >> BlCell >> drawOnAthensCanvas: aCanvas > >> > >> super drawOnAthensCanvas: aCanvas. > >> aCanvas > >> drawShape: (BlShape new > >> strokePaint: > >> (BlStrokePaint new > >> paint: (BlColorPaint new color: (Color blue)); > >> width: 15); > >> path: BlCirclePath new). > >> > >> Now I do not know how I can specify a shape size > >> > >> So I will use another API than drawShape: > >> > >> Stef > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Igor Stasenko. > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Igor Stasenko. > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with." > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her."

April 3, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] [bloc] shape size?

by Aliaksei Syrel

Hello Igor I would like to apologize for my bad tone in previous email. I misunderstood your good will to help and improve design by finding special cases that we didn't manage to cover. I indeed would like to show you that design sounds. Let's play with more concrete examples. To start let's take one mentioned by you, about rectangle morph that answers to events only inside a circle. I will create a repo for PUBLIC bloc experiments so that all of us could try it in practice. Your help is highly appreciated and we are happy to see you :) Cheers On 3 April 2016 at 12:08, Aliaksei Syrel <alex.syrel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > If you want to change clicking behaviour you need to override one single > method. > it is not about just clicking behavior. Sure i can override every single method to get behavior i want, at any point in system i need. Then what is purpose of making any design, if it all goes down to 'oh.. if you don't like something , just go and do it youself'? Seriously? > Everything you wrote with unreadable amount of characters is for nothing. > > Haha.. If you can't read something, it does not means, that there's nothing. It just you cannot read. > All mentioned stuff is possible. > Details, that statement requires. You seem don't want to demonstrate that your concept is sound. Because i wanna see how it goes.. So far i have doubts about it, which i tried to formulate in previous posts.. i may not understand in it something, something you understand.. and i wanna see where i wrong. And in response i got nothing, no arguments, zero. This is exactly, what called 'nothing'. > On Apr 3, 2016 10:30 AM, "Igor Stasenko" <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 3 April 2016 at 10:18, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Igor, >>> >>> Thanks for this nice description :). >>> >>> Indeed, the Shape in Bloc is primarily a clipping shape that knows how >>> to draw the path around and to fill itself. Of course, it also handles the >>> interaction. >>> >>> When you want to have a composition, you are encouraged to create >>> multiple elements (morphs). This is a way to handle both more complicated >>> interaction and more complicated drawing. Of course, you can still override >>> the drawing method and draw whatever you want on it, but we would rather >>> have a simple composition. >>> >>> The disadvantage of this design is that indeed, is that it is not >>> sophisticated. The advantage of this design is that it is not sophisticated >>> :) and you get only one tree of compositions for the elements without >>> another level of composition at the shape level. The main reason we went >>> this route is because we want Bloc to pose as little constraints for the >>> things built on top as possible without losing power. >>> >>> Does this make sense for you? >>> >> >> It makes sense, sure thing. >> But it does not solves the problem. >> As i explained before, a single shape cannot serve as both clipping, UI >> handling and drawing all together. Because it is three separate roles, >> which is good if they coincide, but causing a lot of problems, when they >> are not. >> It is not matters how you compose or decompose shapes.. there is simply >> no composition which can turn rectangle into, lets say circle. >> it simply impossible to construct required clipping shape, or UI shape >> from set of drawing shapes, in case when they are completely different from >> each other. >> >> For instance if i want morph with rectangular appearance (rectangle >> shape) to respond on clicks only within circular subregion inside that >> rectangle, i will be forced to create a submorph and then rewire event >> handling back to its parent. And that happens every time i need a different >> shape for mouse clicks than shape for drawing. Now add clipping here... and >> you will get a nightmare of bells and whistles, composing and whatsnot. >> >> As for 'sophisticated'.. let see: >> so, in my proposition, i do: >> - draw rectangle and circle inside >> - define that circle as UI shape >> - define that rectangle as clipping shape >> done. >> In your design, i have to: >> - make a morph with rectangular shape >> - create submorph with circular shape >> - wire clicking of a submorph to propagate event to its parent >> >> or think about some kind of composition.. composing what with what? >> does it union of circle and rectangle? or intersection? depending the way >> how you composing those two shapes you receive one or another outcome.. >> and that event wiring is extra work.. >> So, it may look that what i proposing is more sophisticated.. >> But i just wanna see a separate roles taking own places, nothing else. >> I do not inventing new concepts, that wasn't there before: >> - you need clipping, >> - you need drawing >> - you need UI handling >> >> You see, it is not a framework, that forcing you to be 'sophisticated' .. >> it is domain itself. It draws a clear border between things that are >> optional and things that are absolutely necessary, since they are separate >> concepts and roles. >> >> You simply cannot represent an infinite dimension of drawing compositions >> by a composition of UI elements. Only the simplest cases.. >> It is big mistake to imply that anything that you drawing on screen must >> be a full-blown UI element (which is morph is) or their composition. >> It makes you quite limited in terms of what you can draw and what not. >> Morph is UI building brick.. but it is not graphical building brick.. >> making such parallel gives more troubles than it solves. >> >> To me concept where morph==shape==clipping shape==ui shape is just: >> - you can have bike of any color, as long as it's black. >> >> Can you enlighten me, what composition of black bikes can result in a >> green one? >> >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>> > On Apr 3, 2016, at 6:38 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Oh, yeah.. i missed one more kind of shape, you may want to introduce: >>> > - clipping shape. >>> > >>> > For optimizing drawing operations, you may want to define a region, >>> which guarantees, that anything you paint, nothing outside defined region >>> will affect the screen. Because else, you will allow morph to render >>> anywhere and therefore, it is really hard for UI subsystem to account >>> damage on the screen. >>> > But once you define such shape, then you can clearly tell, which >>> portion of the screen may or may not be damaged and therefore act >>> accordingly. >>> > >>> > So, overall when we talking about shapes, we need to talk about three >>> different kinds of them: >>> > >>> > - UI interaction shape >>> > - clipping shape >>> > - shape(s) used to draw >>> > >>> > those three may or may not coincide into single one, depending on >>> complexity and what you wanna do.. >>> > But they can be completely different from each other and in order to >>> avoid confusion and frustration, i would really introduce them in such >>> manner, that users have clear vision on what happens with their morphs and >>> how to achieve what they want. >>> > >>> > Clearly, a single #shape: is not enough, if you want a non-conflicting >>> representation of these concepts in UI. >>> > >>> > >>> > On 3 April 2016 at 07:15, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On 2 April 2016 at 20:59, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > Le 2/4/16 17:31, Aliaksei Syrel a Ã©crit : >>> >> You don't want to draw a shape, you configure it. Shape can not be >>> drawn, it is not an AthensPath. >>> >> >>> >> cell shape: (BlShape new >>> >> path: BlCirclePath new; >>> >> strokePaint: (BlStrokePaint new >>> >> paint: Color blue; >>> >> width: 1)). >>> >> cell extent: 50@50. >>> >> >>> > >>> > But this is not what I want! As I mentioned in a mail that was sent >>> but never arrived. >>> > I want a square and this is why I did >>> > >>> > BlCell>>initialize >>> > super initialize. >>> > self >>> > shape: >>> > (BlShape new >>> > fillPaint: (BlColorPaint new color: (Color yellow)); >>> > path: BlRectanglePath new); >>> > extent: self extent >>> > >>> > >>> > then I want to draw something extra this is why I overrode >>> drawOnAthensCanvas: aCanvas >>> > >>> > Now I stop but I find bloc too complex. >>> > >>> > Sorry but I cannot lose time like that and just get frustrated at the >>> end. >>> > I will use the athens canvas directly and stay in morph for now. >>> > >>> > >>> > I think there's a bit of misconception. >>> > In Athens, shape representing any area you wanna fill with paint. >>> Period. >>> > It can be of any complexity, self-intersecting yadda yadda.. the main >>> point is that it defines a region(s), that going to be filled with chosen >>> paint during draw operation. >>> > From perspective of morphs, as UI elements, most of them require some >>> shape(s) to represent themselves on the screen. But there are morphs, that >>> while still taking part in UI, don't need any shapes since they never drawn >>> on the screen. >>> > Another point is that nowhere said that morph can be represented by a >>> one and only one shape period. Because as in your case, you want to, say, >>> draw rectangle with paint A, and circle with paint B, then you basically >>> need two different shapes (overlapping or not - not really matters) to >>> represent morph on the screen. >>> > >>> > So, the first point in misconception comes from 'self shape:'.. >>> > It is wrong from that perspective, because it is all fine, when morph >>> using only single shape to represent itself.. but when you need multiple >>> shapes, you are in trouble. It at least misleading, because provoking you >>> to think that there can be only one. >>> > >>> > Then you need to invent a 'composite shape' that basically a >>> collection of shapes for a single morph, that will represent it on the >>> screen. >>> > >>> > A tangent to that, is that since most of morphs has mostly static >>> geometry/topology and changing it very rarely and much less often comparing >>> to drawing same shape(s) over and over again, it is right thing to define >>> and initialize shape(s) and reuse them later in #draw method. Since you >>> don't change shape(s), you don't have to generate new object(s). >>> > From that perspective, this is nice, resource saving, approach. >>> > But let us not forget, that this is just a 'statistical observation' >>> and hence good to be a default setup. But it should not dictate you the >>> rule(s). >>> > You should still be able to define shape(s) on the fly or change it on >>> the fly, dynamically. >>> > >>> > Another problematic is that you may want to use different shapes for >>> > a) painting morph on screen >>> > b) defining geometry of the morph for UI interactions. >>> > As an example, let say, you want a rectangle with circle in centre on >>> the screen, but also want morph to react on mouse over/clicks only if mouse >>> cursor is inside a circle, but not when it's over an area covered by >>> rectangle. >>> > >>> > What it means, that from UI perspective, you want from morph to define >>> its shape, lets call it 'UI interaction shape'.. and from that perspective >>> 'self shape:' is a good choice. But as example says, it has nothing to do >>> with 'drawing shape(s)', which may or may not coincide with shape you using >>> for UI interaction(s). >>> > >>> > Because it defines an area, where UI stuff could happen. And indeed, >>> you really need one, and only one. You don't need multiple shapes there, >>> since it serves to answer a simple question: 'are my mouse in interesting >>> region or not'?. >>> > Like in your case, when you having box with circle inside , which is >>> two shapes, but only one shape that can define an interesting region, it >>> could be: >>> > - intersection of >>> > - union >>> > - subtraction >>> > >>> > And that could be completely different from shape(s) you may need to >>> draw it on the screen. >>> > >>> > Stef >>> > >>> >> On Apr 2, 2016 4:57 PM, "stepharo" <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> >> Hi >>> >> >>> >> I want a square morph with a circle or a line at 45 degree inside >>> >> Now I do not get it. >>> >> >>> >> I thought that I needed to specialize drawOnAthensCanvas: so I did >>> >> >>> >> BlCell >> drawOnAthensCanvas: aCanvas >>> >> >>> >> super drawOnAthensCanvas: aCanvas. >>> >> aCanvas >>> >> drawShape: (BlShape new >>> >> strokePaint: >>> >> (BlStrokePaint new >>> >> paint: (BlColorPaint new >>> color: (Color blue)); >>> >> width: 15); >>> >> path: BlCirclePath new). >>> >> >>> >> Now I do not know how I can specify a shape size >>> >> >>> >> So I will use another API than drawShape: >>> >> >>> >> Stef >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Best regards, >>> > Igor Stasenko. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Best regards, >>> > Igor Stasenko. >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com >>> www.feenk.com >>> >>> "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with." >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko. >> > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

April 3, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] GSoC alternative: SOCIS

by Yuriy Tymchuk

Looks interesting. But then we need someone to âsellâ pharo as a space-related OS projectâ¦ I mean, itâs not hard, just talk about remote debugging and live update (project of Max Mattone). But someone has to do it. And also someone has to propose the projects around this topics. Cheers. Uko > On 02 Apr 2016, at 19:23, Skip <skippetie(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I just came across an alternative to GSoC called SOCIS. > It's run by the ESA (European Space Agency): > > http://sophia.estec.esa.int/socis/ <http://sophia.estec.esa.int/socis/> > > Maybe you can try applying there? Deadline is April 10th. > > And maybe you all know already about this, in that case feel free to let this thread die :) > > Best wishes, > > Skip

April 3, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] [bloc] shape size?

by Igor Stasenko

On 3 April 2016 at 12:08, Aliaksei Syrel <alex.syrel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > If you want to change clicking behaviour you need to override one single > method. > it is not about just clicking behavior. Sure i can override every single method to get behavior i want, at any point in system i need. Then what is purpose of making any design, if it all goes down to 'oh.. if you don't like something , just go and do it youself'? Seriously? > Everything you wrote with unreadable amount of characters is for nothing. > > Haha.. If you can't read something, it does not means, that there's nothing. It just you cannot read. > All mentioned stuff is possible. > Details, that statement requires. You seem don't want to demonstrate that your concept is sound. Because i wanna see how it goes.. So far i have doubts about it, which i tried to formulate in previous posts.. i may not understand in it something, something you understand.. and i wanna see where i wrong. And in response i got nothing, no arguments, zero. This is exactly, what called 'nothing'. > On Apr 3, 2016 10:30 AM, "Igor Stasenko" <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 3 April 2016 at 10:18, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Igor, >>> >>> Thanks for this nice description :). >>> >>> Indeed, the Shape in Bloc is primarily a clipping shape that knows how >>> to draw the path around and to fill itself. Of course, it also handles the >>> interaction. >>> >>> When you want to have a composition, you are encouraged to create >>> multiple elements (morphs). This is a way to handle both more complicated >>> interaction and more complicated drawing. Of course, you can still override >>> the drawing method and draw whatever you want on it, but we would rather >>> have a simple composition. >>> >>> The disadvantage of this design is that indeed, is that it is not >>> sophisticated. The advantage of this design is that it is not sophisticated >>> :) and you get only one tree of compositions for the elements without >>> another level of composition at the shape level. The main reason we went >>> this route is because we want Bloc to pose as little constraints for the >>> things built on top as possible without losing power. >>> >>> Does this make sense for you? >>> >> >> It makes sense, sure thing. >> But it does not solves the problem. >> As i explained before, a single shape cannot serve as both clipping, UI >> handling and drawing all together. Because it is three separate roles, >> which is good if they coincide, but causing a lot of problems, when they >> are not. >> It is not matters how you compose or decompose shapes.. there is simply >> no composition which can turn rectangle into, lets say circle. >> it simply impossible to construct required clipping shape, or UI shape >> from set of drawing shapes, in case when they are completely different from >> each other. >> >> For instance if i want morph with rectangular appearance (rectangle >> shape) to respond on clicks only within circular subregion inside that >> rectangle, i will be forced to create a submorph and then rewire event >> handling back to its parent. And that happens every time i need a different >> shape for mouse clicks than shape for drawing. Now add clipping here... and >> you will get a nightmare of bells and whistles, composing and whatsnot. >> >> As for 'sophisticated'.. let see: >> so, in my proposition, i do: >> - draw rectangle and circle inside >> - define that circle as UI shape >> - define that rectangle as clipping shape >> done. >> In your design, i have to: >> - make a morph with rectangular shape >> - create submorph with circular shape >> - wire clicking of a submorph to propagate event to its parent >> >> or think about some kind of composition.. composing what with what? >> does it union of circle and rectangle? or intersection? depending the way >> how you composing those two shapes you receive one or another outcome.. >> and that event wiring is extra work.. >> So, it may look that what i proposing is more sophisticated.. >> But i just wanna see a separate roles taking own places, nothing else. >> I do not inventing new concepts, that wasn't there before: >> - you need clipping, >> - you need drawing >> - you need UI handling >> >> You see, it is not a framework, that forcing you to be 'sophisticated' .. >> it is domain itself. It draws a clear border between things that are >> optional and things that are absolutely necessary, since they are separate >> concepts and roles. >> >> You simply cannot represent an infinite dimension of drawing compositions >> by a composition of UI elements. Only the simplest cases.. >> It is big mistake to imply that anything that you drawing on screen must >> be a full-blown UI element (which is morph is) or their composition. >> It makes you quite limited in terms of what you can draw and what not. >> Morph is UI building brick.. but it is not graphical building brick.. >> making such parallel gives more troubles than it solves. >> >> To me concept where morph==shape==clipping shape==ui shape is just: >> - you can have bike of any color, as long as it's black. >> >> Can you enlighten me, what composition of black bikes can result in a >> green one? >> >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>> > On Apr 3, 2016, at 6:38 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Oh, yeah.. i missed one more kind of shape, you may want to introduce: >>> > - clipping shape. >>> > >>> > For optimizing drawing operations, you may want to define a region, >>> which guarantees, that anything you paint, nothing outside defined region >>> will affect the screen. Because else, you will allow morph to render >>> anywhere and therefore, it is really hard for UI subsystem to account >>> damage on the screen. >>> > But once you define such shape, then you can clearly tell, which >>> portion of the screen may or may not be damaged and therefore act >>> accordingly. >>> > >>> > So, overall when we talking about shapes, we need to talk about three >>> different kinds of them: >>> > >>> > - UI interaction shape >>> > - clipping shape >>> > - shape(s) used to draw >>> > >>> > those three may or may not coincide into single one, depending on >>> complexity and what you wanna do.. >>> > But they can be completely different from each other and in order to >>> avoid confusion and frustration, i would really introduce them in such >>> manner, that users have clear vision on what happens with their morphs and >>> how to achieve what they want. >>> > >>> > Clearly, a single #shape: is not enough, if you want a non-conflicting >>> representation of these concepts in UI. >>> > >>> > >>> > On 3 April 2016 at 07:15, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On 2 April 2016 at 20:59, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > Le 2/4/16 17:31, Aliaksei Syrel a Ã©crit : >>> >> You don't want to draw a shape, you configure it. Shape can not be >>> drawn, it is not an AthensPath. >>> >> >>> >> cell shape: (BlShape new >>> >> path: BlCirclePath new; >>> >> strokePaint: (BlStrokePaint new >>> >> paint: Color blue; >>> >> width: 1)). >>> >> cell extent: 50@50. >>> >> >>> > >>> > But this is not what I want! As I mentioned in a mail that was sent >>> but never arrived. >>> > I want a square and this is why I did >>> > >>> > BlCell>>initialize >>> > super initialize. >>> > self >>> > shape: >>> > (BlShape new >>> > fillPaint: (BlColorPaint new color: (Color yellow)); >>> > path: BlRectanglePath new); >>> > extent: self extent >>> > >>> > >>> > then I want to draw something extra this is why I overrode >>> drawOnAthensCanvas: aCanvas >>> > >>> > Now I stop but I find bloc too complex. >>> > >>> > Sorry but I cannot lose time like that and just get frustrated at the >>> end. >>> > I will use the athens canvas directly and stay in morph for now. >>> > >>> > >>> > I think there's a bit of misconception. >>> > In Athens, shape representing any area you wanna fill with paint. >>> Period. >>> > It can be of any complexity, self-intersecting yadda yadda.. the main >>> point is that it defines a region(s), that going to be filled with chosen >>> paint during draw operation. >>> > From perspective of morphs, as UI elements, most of them require some >>> shape(s) to represent themselves on the screen. But there are morphs, that >>> while still taking part in UI, don't need any shapes since they never drawn >>> on the screen. >>> > Another point is that nowhere said that morph can be represented by a >>> one and only one shape period. Because as in your case, you want to, say, >>> draw rectangle with paint A, and circle with paint B, then you basically >>> need two different shapes (overlapping or not - not really matters) to >>> represent morph on the screen. >>> > >>> > So, the first point in misconception comes from 'self shape:'.. >>> > It is wrong from that perspective, because it is all fine, when morph >>> using only single shape to represent itself.. but when you need multiple >>> shapes, you are in trouble. It at least misleading, because provoking you >>> to think that there can be only one. >>> > >>> > Then you need to invent a 'composite shape' that basically a >>> collection of shapes for a single morph, that will represent it on the >>> screen. >>> > >>> > A tangent to that, is that since most of morphs has mostly static >>> geometry/topology and changing it very rarely and much less often comparing >>> to drawing same shape(s) over and over again, it is right thing to define >>> and initialize shape(s) and reuse them later in #draw method. Since you >>> don't change shape(s), you don't have to generate new object(s). >>> > From that perspective, this is nice, resource saving, approach. >>> > But let us not forget, that this is just a 'statistical observation' >>> and hence good to be a default setup. But it should not dictate you the >>> rule(s). >>> > You should still be able to define shape(s) on the fly or change it on >>> the fly, dynamically. >>> > >>> > Another problematic is that you may want to use different shapes for >>> > a) painting morph on screen >>> > b) defining geometry of the morph for UI interactions. >>> > As an example, let say, you want a rectangle with circle in centre on >>> the screen, but also want morph to react on mouse over/clicks only if mouse >>> cursor is inside a circle, but not when it's over an area covered by >>> rectangle. >>> > >>> > What it means, that from UI perspective, you want from morph to define >>> its shape, lets call it 'UI interaction shape'.. and from that perspective >>> 'self shape:' is a good choice. But as example says, it has nothing to do >>> with 'drawing shape(s)', which may or may not coincide with shape you using >>> for UI interaction(s). >>> > >>> > Because it defines an area, where UI stuff could happen. And indeed, >>> you really need one, and only one. You don't need multiple shapes there, >>> since it serves to answer a simple question: 'are my mouse in interesting >>> region or not'?. >>> > Like in your case, when you having box with circle inside , which is >>> two shapes, but only one shape that can define an interesting region, it >>> could be: >>> > - intersection of >>> > - union >>> > - subtraction >>> > >>> > And that could be completely different from shape(s) you may need to >>> draw it on the screen. >>> > >>> > Stef >>> > >>> >> On Apr 2, 2016 4:57 PM, "stepharo" <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> >> Hi >>> >> >>> >> I want a square morph with a circle or a line at 45 degree inside >>> >> Now I do not get it. >>> >> >>> >> I thought that I needed to specialize drawOnAthensCanvas: so I did >>> >> >>> >> BlCell >> drawOnAthensCanvas: aCanvas >>> >> >>> >> super drawOnAthensCanvas: aCanvas. >>> >> aCanvas >>> >> drawShape: (BlShape new >>> >> strokePaint: >>> >> (BlStrokePaint new >>> >> paint: (BlColorPaint new >>> color: (Color blue)); >>> >> width: 15); >>> >> path: BlCirclePath new). >>> >> >>> >> Now I do not know how I can specify a shape size >>> >> >>> >> So I will use another API than drawShape: >>> >> >>> >> Stef >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Best regards, >>> > Igor Stasenko. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Best regards, >>> > Igor Stasenko. >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com >>> www.feenk.com >>> >>> "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with." >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko. >> > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

April 3, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] [bloc] shape size?

by Aliaksei Syrel

If you want to change clicking behaviour you need to override one single method. Everything you wrote with unreadable amount of characters is for nothing. All mentioned stuff is possible. On Apr 3, 2016 10:30 AM, "Igor Stasenko" <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 3 April 2016 at 10:18, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > >> Hi Igor, >> >> Thanks for this nice description :). >> >> Indeed, the Shape in Bloc is primarily a clipping shape that knows how to >> draw the path around and to fill itself. Of course, it also handles the >> interaction. >> >> When you want to have a composition, you are encouraged to create >> multiple elements (morphs). This is a way to handle both more complicated >> interaction and more complicated drawing. Of course, you can still override >> the drawing method and draw whatever you want on it, but we would rather >> have a simple composition. >> >> The disadvantage of this design is that indeed, is that it is not >> sophisticated. The advantage of this design is that it is not sophisticated >> :) and you get only one tree of compositions for the elements without >> another level of composition at the shape level. The main reason we went >> this route is because we want Bloc to pose as little constraints for the >> things built on top as possible without losing power. >> >> Does this make sense for you? >> > > It makes sense, sure thing. > But it does not solves the problem. > As i explained before, a single shape cannot serve as both clipping, UI > handling and drawing all together. Because it is three separate roles, > which is good if they coincide, but causing a lot of problems, when they > are not. > It is not matters how you compose or decompose shapes.. there is simply no > composition which can turn rectangle into, lets say circle. > it simply impossible to construct required clipping shape, or UI shape > from set of drawing shapes, in case when they are completely different from > each other. > > For instance if i want morph with rectangular appearance (rectangle shape) > to respond on clicks only within circular subregion inside that rectangle, > i will be forced to create a submorph and then rewire event handling back > to its parent. And that happens every time i need a different shape for > mouse clicks than shape for drawing. Now add clipping here... and you will > get a nightmare of bells and whistles, composing and whatsnot. > > As for 'sophisticated'.. let see: > so, in my proposition, i do: > - draw rectangle and circle inside > - define that circle as UI shape > - define that rectangle as clipping shape > done. > In your design, i have to: > - make a morph with rectangular shape > - create submorph with circular shape > - wire clicking of a submorph to propagate event to its parent > > or think about some kind of composition.. composing what with what? > does it union of circle and rectangle? or intersection? depending the way > how you composing those two shapes you receive one or another outcome.. > and that event wiring is extra work.. > So, it may look that what i proposing is more sophisticated.. > But i just wanna see a separate roles taking own places, nothing else. > I do not inventing new concepts, that wasn't there before: > - you need clipping, > - you need drawing > - you need UI handling > > You see, it is not a framework, that forcing you to be 'sophisticated' .. > it is domain itself. It draws a clear border between things that are > optional and things that are absolutely necessary, since they are separate > concepts and roles. > > You simply cannot represent an infinite dimension of drawing compositions > by a composition of UI elements. Only the simplest cases.. > It is big mistake to imply that anything that you drawing on screen must > be a full-blown UI element (which is morph is) or their composition. > It makes you quite limited in terms of what you can draw and what not. > Morph is UI building brick.. but it is not graphical building brick.. > making such parallel gives more troubles than it solves. > > To me concept where morph==shape==clipping shape==ui shape is just: > - you can have bike of any color, as long as it's black. > > Can you enlighten me, what composition of black bikes can result in a > green one? > > >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >> > On Apr 3, 2016, at 6:38 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Oh, yeah.. i missed one more kind of shape, you may want to introduce: >> > - clipping shape. >> > >> > For optimizing drawing operations, you may want to define a region, >> which guarantees, that anything you paint, nothing outside defined region >> will affect the screen. Because else, you will allow morph to render >> anywhere and therefore, it is really hard for UI subsystem to account >> damage on the screen. >> > But once you define such shape, then you can clearly tell, which >> portion of the screen may or may not be damaged and therefore act >> accordingly. >> > >> > So, overall when we talking about shapes, we need to talk about three >> different kinds of them: >> > >> > - UI interaction shape >> > - clipping shape >> > - shape(s) used to draw >> > >> > those three may or may not coincide into single one, depending on >> complexity and what you wanna do.. >> > But they can be completely different from each other and in order to >> avoid confusion and frustration, i would really introduce them in such >> manner, that users have clear vision on what happens with their morphs and >> how to achieve what they want. >> > >> > Clearly, a single #shape: is not enough, if you want a non-conflicting >> representation of these concepts in UI. >> > >> > >> > On 3 April 2016 at 07:15, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 2 April 2016 at 20:59, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Le 2/4/16 17:31, Aliaksei Syrel a Ã©crit : >> >> You don't want to draw a shape, you configure it. Shape can not be >> drawn, it is not an AthensPath. >> >> >> >> cell shape: (BlShape new >> >> path: BlCirclePath new; >> >> strokePaint: (BlStrokePaint new >> >> paint: Color blue; >> >> width: 1)). >> >> cell extent: 50@50. >> >> >> > >> > But this is not what I want! As I mentioned in a mail that was sent but >> never arrived. >> > I want a square and this is why I did >> > >> > BlCell>>initialize >> > super initialize. >> > self >> > shape: >> > (BlShape new >> > fillPaint: (BlColorPaint new color: (Color yellow)); >> > path: BlRectanglePath new); >> > extent: self extent >> > >> > >> > then I want to draw something extra this is why I overrode >> drawOnAthensCanvas: aCanvas >> > >> > Now I stop but I find bloc too complex. >> > >> > Sorry but I cannot lose time like that and just get frustrated at the >> end. >> > I will use the athens canvas directly and stay in morph for now. >> > >> > >> > I think there's a bit of misconception. >> > In Athens, shape representing any area you wanna fill with paint. >> Period. >> > It can be of any complexity, self-intersecting yadda yadda.. the main >> point is that it defines a region(s), that going to be filled with chosen >> paint during draw operation. >> > From perspective of morphs, as UI elements, most of them require some >> shape(s) to represent themselves on the screen. But there are morphs, that >> while still taking part in UI, don't need any shapes since they never drawn >> on the screen. >> > Another point is that nowhere said that morph can be represented by a >> one and only one shape period. Because as in your case, you want to, say, >> draw rectangle with paint A, and circle with paint B, then you basically >> need two different shapes (overlapping or not - not really matters) to >> represent morph on the screen. >> > >> > So, the first point in misconception comes from 'self shape:'.. >> > It is wrong from that perspective, because it is all fine, when morph >> using only single shape to represent itself.. but when you need multiple >> shapes, you are in trouble. It at least misleading, because provoking you >> to think that there can be only one. >> > >> > Then you need to invent a 'composite shape' that basically a collection >> of shapes for a single morph, that will represent it on the screen. >> > >> > A tangent to that, is that since most of morphs has mostly static >> geometry/topology and changing it very rarely and much less often comparing >> to drawing same shape(s) over and over again, it is right thing to define >> and initialize shape(s) and reuse them later in #draw method. Since you >> don't change shape(s), you don't have to generate new object(s). >> > From that perspective, this is nice, resource saving, approach. >> > But let us not forget, that this is just a 'statistical observation' >> and hence good to be a default setup. But it should not dictate you the >> rule(s). >> > You should still be able to define shape(s) on the fly or change it on >> the fly, dynamically. >> > >> > Another problematic is that you may want to use different shapes for >> > a) painting morph on screen >> > b) defining geometry of the morph for UI interactions. >> > As an example, let say, you want a rectangle with circle in centre on >> the screen, but also want morph to react on mouse over/clicks only if mouse >> cursor is inside a circle, but not when it's over an area covered by >> rectangle. >> > >> > What it means, that from UI perspective, you want from morph to define >> its shape, lets call it 'UI interaction shape'.. and from that perspective >> 'self shape:' is a good choice. But as example says, it has nothing to do >> with 'drawing shape(s)', which may or may not coincide with shape you using >> for UI interaction(s). >> > >> > Because it defines an area, where UI stuff could happen. And indeed, >> you really need one, and only one. You don't need multiple shapes there, >> since it serves to answer a simple question: 'are my mouse in interesting >> region or not'?. >> > Like in your case, when you having box with circle inside , which is >> two shapes, but only one shape that can define an interesting region, it >> could be: >> > - intersection of >> > - union >> > - subtraction >> > >> > And that could be completely different from shape(s) you may need to >> draw it on the screen. >> > >> > Stef >> > >> >> On Apr 2, 2016 4:57 PM, "stepharo" <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> >> >> I want a square morph with a circle or a line at 45 degree inside >> >> Now I do not get it. >> >> >> >> I thought that I needed to specialize drawOnAthensCanvas: so I did >> >> >> >> BlCell >> drawOnAthensCanvas: aCanvas >> >> >> >> super drawOnAthensCanvas: aCanvas. >> >> aCanvas >> >> drawShape: (BlShape new >> >> strokePaint: >> >> (BlStrokePaint new >> >> paint: (BlColorPaint new >> color: (Color blue)); >> >> width: 15); >> >> path: BlCirclePath new). >> >> >> >> Now I do not know how I can specify a shape size >> >> >> >> So I will use another API than drawShape: >> >> >> >> Stef >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Best regards, >> > Igor Stasenko. >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Best regards, >> > Igor Stasenko. >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> www.feenk.com >> >> "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with." >> >> >> > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. >

April 3, 2016