If you need it the other way around, then instead of calling it in the layout, 
there is a method on adapter named #buildWidget (or something close)
which is the perfect place for this :)

Ben

On 04 Apr 2014, at 01:53, Thomas Bany <mun.sys...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Okey so I looked deeper into the interpreter and found that the receiver of 
> the next call is the returned value of the previous. I'm pretty sure it 
> explains the infinite loop I was encountering.
> 
> It also made it problematic to register the morph to the anouncement of the 
> adapter, since #addDependent: is send with a morph to the model and I needed 
> the other way arround.
> 
> Adding #beDependentTo: somewhere in the class hierarchy of SimpleSwitchMorph 
> make it work but I'm not sure I should do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 2014-04-03 20:37 GMT+02:00 Thomas Bany <mun.sys...@gmail.com>:
> Hum, I was pondering the problem at home and started from scratch. I don't 
> have the issue anymore ...
> 
> 
> 2014-04-03 18:40 GMT+02:00 Thomas Bany <mun.sys...@gmail.com>:
> 
> Hey,
> 
> I have a quick question. I'm trying to build an adapter (called 
> MorphicSwitchAdapter) and a model for SimpleSwitchMorp. I based my layout on 
> the ones in existing adapter (namely MorphicButtonAdapter).
> 
> And I get stuck in an infinite loop during the interpretation of the layout 
> of the adapter.
> 
> The first lines are:
> 
>     ^ {#SimpleSwitchMorph.
>             #onColor:. #(model onColor).
>             #offColor:. #(model #offColor)
>                         etc...
> 
> At some point, it tries to interpret #(#model #offColor)) and a few step 
> latter, it comes back to step one and tries to interpret 
> #(#MorphicSwitchAdapter #adapt: #model).
> 
> I tried this alternative {#model. #onColor} (though this one is equivalent to 
> me) and this one #model. #onColor. but to no avail.
> 
> I have a feeling that the problem stems from the fact that 
> PluggableButtonMorph seems to allready be an adapter which take a model while 
> SimpleSwitchMorp does not.
> 
> Could you throw some light as to why the interpretation fails ?
> 
> Again, thanks for your help !
> 
> Thomas.
> 
> 

Reply via email to