On 12 Jun 2014, at 12:53, Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr> wrote:
> > On 12 Jun 2014, at 16:06, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: > >>> I like the idea. The current Morph classes are too big. It is >>> difficult to understand them and to find out how to work with them >>> "the right way" (event handling for example or layouting). >>> >>> Can you describe something more about the design. Or is the design >>> a work in progress. >>> >>> Please, I hope the "properties"-Dictionary is only a left over for >>> Morphic compatibility. I never understood why these are >>> used instead of proper selector and objects representing actual >>> properties. >>> >> For some objects you need a hashtable-based object because you may need a >> property that >> does not make sense all the time or just for some kinds of objects. >> So the extension is not a bad idea per se but we should pay attention. >> > > The PropertySlots will be interesting for this… the real negative point of > properties as used > in Morhpic is that they do not need to be declared. With property slots, you > get the same > memory efficiency, but you are forced to declare that a proper is used. Yeah, but I would not inflate the base morph with something that I might or might not use. I would use a hierarchy instead. Esteban > > Marcus > >
