Hi everyone, I am realising some reusable components for synectique and i faced a strange behavior. |tab| tab := GLMTabulator new. tab row: #test. tab transmit to: #test; andShow: [ :p | p list onChangeOfPort: #aPort act: [ :pre :input | input inspect ] ]. tab transmit from: #test; to: #test port: #aPort; transformation: [ :anything | 5 ]. tab openOn: (100 to: 150) here i expect that when i click on an element of the list, i will inspect 5 but if you try, you will see that you inspect the interval 100 to: 150 Guillaume Larcheveque
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
Hi, Every act works like that: - the first argument is the presentation - the second one is the entity If you want to get the selection, you do "presentation selection". Cheers, Doru On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Guillaume Larcheveque <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
Ok but here i want (and expect) to get the transformed value of the transmission (5 in my example) because I put it on the port #aPort and have an action based on this port. "presentation selection" will give me the number selected in the list, which is not what i want. It's only a matter of feeling but it's strange to me that this trigger on a port change didn't provide the value provided to this port but the entity of the presentation. 2014-11-25 12:13 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>:
Guillaume Larcheveque
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
Hi, I understand. The choice was to make it the same as all other act: blocks for consistency. Perhaps in this case it is less nice. It's a tradeoff. In any case, you can get your port by asking the presentation. Cheers, Doru On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Guillaume Larcheveque <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
I totally agree with you to be consistent between methods that have the same name. However this method allows a variable number of arguments for the block so in my opinion we can define the third parameter to be the transmitted value. Thank you for your answer 2014-11-25 21:42 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>:
Guillaume Larcheveque
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |