Le 03/04/2016 17:33, stepharo a écrit :
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.
In short, i see only two cases where indeed, morph requires a nothing
of shapes to define:
- clipping region(s)
- ui interaction region(s)
but for drawing? nooooo... really? who cares what you draw there?
draw anything, in any possible way you see fit.. compose, decompose,
recombine, blend and mix.. that's the whole purpose of drawing and be
artistic and be able to express yourself in any possible way you want :)
Why nailing and formalizing things that are tend to be hardly
formalizable and more than that, unnecessary.
That's my main concern about current design.
I agree.
I do not see why people are forced to create a submorph just to change
the rendering.
If you want to change it dynamically you can for example pass a
different shape.
I don't see the problem with subclassing a morph.
The reverse: I feel like current Morphs are huge monsters of
configurability and parameter blocks and properties and intricated code
and thousands of methods so that one doesn't has to subclass...
Simpler, "subclassable" morphs suits me a lot better.
Bloc looks like its taking some of the bad aspects of Morphic.
Regards,
Thierry
