2013/5/17 Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> > On 16 May 2013 14:37, Camillo Bruni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 2013-05-16, at 13:04, Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello. > >> > >> 2013/5/16 Camillo Bruni <[email protected]> > >> > >>> I have a question concerning the new TxText layout. > >>> How hard is it support inline non-text nodes (aka inline morphs) in a > text > >>> layout? > >>> > >> > >> Do you mean supporting "TxMorphSpan" objects from text model at text > layout > >> level? > >> I think it is is not hard. Main issue here is supporting such kind of > spans > >> at text model level. But I think it is not difficult too, > >> I should look at code to answer in detail (can't do it now). > >> > >> > >>> > >>> My dream is still to be able to drag and drop an "instance" from an > >>> inspector to a workspace and do some operations on it using standard > >>> smalltalk. > >> > >> > >> +1 > >> And I want drag and drop objects between inspectors and between > workspaces. > >> > >> > >>> The only difference here would be instead of using a variable or > >>> expression to get an instance of something I would have a > textual/visual > >>> node directly representing an instance! > >>> > >> > >> I'm not understand it. > >> By dropping some object to workspace It can create named variable and > then > >> you can use it for scripting inside workspace. > >> But what you suggest here? Can you explan deeply? > > > > > > Indeed I am not very clear (as usual :). > > a) I want to have a morph representing an object > > b) I want to embed these morphs into text > > c) I want to interact with these morphs and the text > > > > Let's say [Set] is the morph representing a set and I have the following > > source code with this morph inside: > > > > [Set] includes: #a > > > > Then this would be equivalent to the following: > > > > Smalltalk at: #MySetInstance put Set new. > > > > MySetInstance includes: #a > > > > However [Set] is not just text but a real morph I can drag around, right > click > > and get a decent, instance specific menu on... and so forth :) > > > > is that more clear? > > Yes. That's probably the good reason why Object should have #asMorph > protocol. > > Right now it is a bit far from your idea: > > Object>>asMorph > "Open a morph, as best one can, on the receiver" > > ^ self asStringMorph > > > P.S. but please do not use "Smalltalk at: put:" in examples, because > someone could take it literally :) > > P.P.S. since inspector lists objects in left-side pane, i think it > would be nice to be able to drag > item out of it and drop into workspace. The morph should keep a > reference to dragged object > and represent it as morph, embedded in text or not... and you don't > need to keep it somewhere else (e.g in globals). >
It should be one of the options. I personally prefer to drop object into workspace, put name for it and use it as usual workspace variable. Really how you will use "morph reference" of object at multiple places of workspace? How you will refer to it at new expressions? > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. > >
