If the workspace also support Morphic Text Inlining, then you could duplicate the variable morphic element, and reuse it later :)
Ben On May 16, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisi...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2013/5/17 Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com> > On 16 May 2013 14:37, Camillo Bruni <camillobr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 2013-05-16, at 13:04, Denis Kudriashov <dionisi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello. > >> > >> 2013/5/16 Camillo Bruni <camillobr...@gmail.com> > >> > >>> I have a question concerning the new TxText layout. > >>> How hard is it support inline non-text nodes (aka inline morphs) in a text > >>> layout? > >>> > >> > >> Do you mean supporting "TxMorphSpan" objects from text model at text layout > >> level? > >> I think it is is not hard. Main issue here is supporting such kind of spans > >> at text model level. But I think it is not difficult too, > >> I should look at code to answer in detail (can't do it now). > >> > >> > >>> > >>> My dream is still to be able to drag and drop an "instance" from an > >>> inspector to a workspace and do some operations on it using standard > >>> smalltalk. > >> > >> > >> +1 > >> And I want drag and drop objects between inspectors and between workspaces. > >> > >> > >>> The only difference here would be instead of using a variable or > >>> expression to get an instance of something I would have a textual/visual > >>> node directly representing an instance! > >>> > >> > >> I'm not understand it. > >> By dropping some object to workspace It can create named variable and then > >> you can use it for scripting inside workspace. > >> But what you suggest here? Can you explan deeply? > > > > > > Indeed I am not very clear (as usual :). > > a) I want to have a morph representing an object > > b) I want to embed these morphs into text > > c) I want to interact with these morphs and the text > > > > Let's say [Set] is the morph representing a set and I have the following > > source code with this morph inside: > > > > [Set] includes: #a > > > > Then this would be equivalent to the following: > > > > Smalltalk at: #MySetInstance put Set new. > > > > MySetInstance includes: #a > > > > However [Set] is not just text but a real morph I can drag around, right > > click > > and get a decent, instance specific menu on... and so forth :) > > > > is that more clear? > > Yes. That's probably the good reason why Object should have #asMorph protocol. > > Right now it is a bit far from your idea: > > Object>>asMorph > "Open a morph, as best one can, on the receiver" > > ^ self asStringMorph > > > P.S. but please do not use "Smalltalk at: put:" in examples, because > someone could take it literally :) > > P.P.S. since inspector lists objects in left-side pane, i think it > would be nice to be able to drag > item out of it and drop into workspace. The morph should keep a > reference to dragged object > and represent it as morph, embedded in text or not... and you don't > need to keep it somewhere else (e.g in globals). > > It should be one of the options. I personally prefer to drop object into > workspace, put name for it and use it as usual workspace variable. > Really how you will use "morph reference" of object at multiple places of > workspace? How you will refer to it at new expressions? > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. > >
