Why should fonts and colors be mutable?
> On Apr 11, 2017, at 10:41 PM, WarGrey Gyoudmon Ju <juzhenli...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > This is a little awkward, there are lots of simple classes defined in > racket/draw, font%, color%, pen%, brush% and so on. They just hold a group of > plain data, hence opportunities to be inspected easily. However by default > all classes are opaque, the easiest (and perhaps unique) way to handle this > is to inherit them and implement the `printable<%>` or `writable<%>`. > > Despite the wordy code and wasting little runtime space, the major problem is > all those classes hide their (set-immutable) methods, even worse, the > immutability is checked through the private field. As a consequence, > subclasses of Pen% and Brush% copy color instances every time to make them > immutable (and opaque) again... > > So is it okay to open that interface? > Besides, With a long term plan, I want to improve the font infrastructure, > meanwhile maybe font% also should provide a (get-handler) or (get-desc). > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
