yes, and I always said this is plain bad.
how it is now it is not a contextual menu, is NextStep style and is the correct behaviour (after we can discuss if we want to keep a menu as it is now or not, but that’s another discussion) :) Esteban
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2
Hi,
Please, pay attention that the design may/will change quickly. As Doru said, it is the current status, not the final status and many changes may/will appear. I say that because we are working on it (revisiting the core model), so it would be different. Cheers, Glenn.
Glenn Cavarlé
|
In reply to this post by EstebanLM
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:
> yes, and I always said this is plain bad. > how it is now it is not a contextual menu, I'm not clear how you mean this "how it is now", so I /think/ I'm agreeing when I say the World Menu is a context menu - the menu in the context of the World - which is why it should be on the right-mouse-button - the same as all our other context menus and those of the rest of the world. > is NextStep style and is the > correct behaviour (after we can discuss if we want to keep a menu as it is > now or not, but that’s another discussion) :) > > Esteban > > On 21 Jun 2016, at 15:54, Aliaksei Syrel <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> In Pharo the World menu is accessed through left-click and right-click >> provides the world contents. In Bloc, right-click displays the world menu >> and left-click does nothing. Is it expected / some design choice or just >> convenience for debugging ? At first glance I thought Bloc didn't work >> because I was left-clicking like in Pharo. > > > It was like that from the very begging of Bloc development. Main developers > of Bloc prefer right click to open menu (like almost everywhere except > Pharo). > > Cheers, > Alex > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Aliaksei Syrel <[hidden email]> > wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Aliaksei Syrel <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> When (in Bloc) I go to World menu>>help>>Help browser>>Bloc>>Grid >>>>> Layout, I find the following license: >>>> >>>> >> Copyright (C) 2011 The Android Open Source Project >>>> >> >>>> >> Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); >>>> >> you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. >>>> >> You may obtain a copy of the License at >>>> >> >>>> >>>> Apache 2.0 is compatible/can be used with MIT - as far as I can tell >>>> according to answers on Internet. Maybe a lawyer can answer more correctly. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Alex These charts provide a nice overview... [1] http://i.stack.imgur.com/CZIoa.png [2] http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html [3] http://choosealicense.com/licenses/ Comparing MIT and Apache, the latter... * protects against patents * protects against trademark misuse * disclaims warranty and liability * requires changes to be clearly identified (in source) * default license assignment to contributions I believe [1] is in error tagging Apache as "any change must be distributed in source form." It is only IF you distribute in source form that you need to retain all copyright, patent, trademark and attribution notices. cheers -ben >>>> >> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 >>>> >> >>>> >> Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software >>>> >> distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, >>>> >> WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or >>>> >> implied. >>>> >> See the License for the specific language governing permissions and >>>> >> limitations under the License. >>>> >> >>>> >> Does it mean Bloc is not under MIT ? Or is it completely unrelated ? |
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2
Thanks! As we've imagined and experimented with the UI of our future, I've felt very strongly that it's essential for the world to be built up from building blocks which make few assumptions other than their communication protocol and can be easily plugged in and out by a courageous user. A test case for this, which opens up many exciting possibilities (imagine I want to control time in my space e.g. run a simulation at 10x speed...), would be to have a world within a world. I dabbled with this idea a bit in Morphic, but quickly became frustrated because Morphic makes too many assumptions e.g. relying on globals and hardcoded classes. The last time I tried this in Bloc, the result of the discussion was that Alain said that this should be conceptually possible, but that I should be patient (http://forum.world.st/Bloc-Space-within-a-Space-td4877474.html). Are we any closer to this dream?
Cheers,
Sean |
Administrator
|
Bump!!
Cheers,
Sean |
Hi,
That is one of the variables we have on the radar. Whether we can make it in the first iteration, remains to be seen. Cheers, Doru > On Jul 12, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Sean P. DeNigris wrote >> A test case for this, which opens up many exciting possibilities (imagine >> I want to control time in my space e.g. run a simulation at 10x speed...), >> would be to have a world within a world. I dabbled with this idea a bit in >> Morphic, but quickly became frustrated because Morphic makes too many >> assumptions e.g. relying on globals and hardcoded classes. >> >> The last time I tried this in Bloc, the result of the discussion was that >> Alain said that this should be conceptually possible, but that I should be >> patient (http://forum.world.st/Bloc-Space-within-a-Space-td4877474.html). >> Are we any closer to this dream? > > Bump!! > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/bloc-status-update-june-2016-tp4901988p4906283.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Sometimes the best solution is not the best solution." |
In reply to this post by Sean P. DeNigris
Hi glenn
with bloc2 (yes new implementation) it will be possible, Glenn can open separate worlds and we discussed a lot your point (and we share it). Stef Le 12/7/16 à 16:57, Sean P. DeNigris a écrit : > Sean P. DeNigris wrote >> A test case for this, which opens up many exciting possibilities (imagine >> I want to control time in my space e.g. run a simulation at 10x speed...), >> would be to have a world within a world. I dabbled with this idea a bit in >> Morphic, but quickly became frustrated because Morphic makes too many >> assumptions e.g. relying on globals and hardcoded classes. >> >> The last time I tried this in Bloc, the result of the discussion was that >> Alain said that this should be conceptually possible, but that I should be >> patient (http://forum.world.st/Bloc-Space-within-a-Space-td4877474.html). >> Are we any closer to this dream? > Bump!! > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/bloc-status-update-june-2016-tp4901988p4906283.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > |
Does this mean "worlds within worlds" or "worlds adjacent to other worlds". If adjacent, will they be able to communicate with each other?
Brad Selfridge
|
For now it means that we can write "World new open" and we can use this
to write tests. We have Bloc2 SDL worlds side by side and the goal is to have everything ready (tools and widgets) and to get rid of the morphic one. In Bloc1 we did not have other physical window so we had too many constraints and morphic infection points. But we could run Morphic inside Bloc. In Bloc2 this is not possible but we get a better event bubbling model and other possibilities. Stef Le 13/7/16 à 03:27, Brad Selfridge a écrit : > Does this mean "worlds within worlds" or "worlds adjacent to other worlds". > If adjacent, will they be able to communicate with each other? > > > > > ----- > Brad Selfridge > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/bloc-status-update-june-2016-tp4901988p4906373.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |