[Cuis-dev] Renaming several fundamental Morph classes

[Juan Vuletich]

On 12/27/2021 1:39 PM, Bernhard Pieber via Cuis-dev wrote:
> Hi Juan,
> Hi Hilaire,
>
> Thanks for the explanation regarding morphs without location. Now that I understand it, I quite like the name MovableMorph. I think it is conveys the meaning better than LocatedMorph. All morphs are located but some are not movable (by themselves).

Yes. This was the rationale behind MovableMorph. A morph you (or code) 
can move around.

> What about layoutSpec? Could any „unmovable“ morph make good of it?

I think not. Layouts control locations (and extents, if present).

> I think it would be great to have at least one Non-MovableMorph subclass in the base system to have a good example.

Agreed.

> Cheers,
> Bernhard
>
>> Am 27.12.2021 um 09:58 schrieb Hilaire Fernandes via Cuis-dev<cuis-dev at lists.cuis.st>:
>>
>>> I haven't implemented any yet, but I was thinking, for example, on a morph that is a function, in a FunctionGraphMorph. The graph sets the space (the coordinate system) for the functions it shows. Each function can't and shouldn't be moved. If you move the sin(x) function 1 upwards, it becomes sin(x)+1, and that's a different function. So it is for morphs that can't be moved at all.
>> In DrGeo, geometric item views are direct subclasses of Morph, because you are not expected to drag these morphs around. The view is only positioned according to its math model. So this is an additional show case for a Morph without location attribute.
>

Cheers,

-- 
Juan Vuletich
www.cuis-smalltalk.org
https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev
https://github.com/jvuletich
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juan-Vuletich
https://www.linkedin.com/in/juan-vuletich-75611b3
https://independent.academia.edu/JuanVuletich
@JuanVuletich