[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]

Many-to-many: bad name

I think the many-to-many raster has a bad name. Sure, showing
intersections is one thing it does, but the name doesn't describe what
it does well.

Basicly, in its current form, it is a brick-style hard raster with
floating headcells. And this hints on a possible extension of it: as a
grid or "hard" raster in general. Letting vanishing do the job just
makes stuff more complicated, really. Generalizing many-to-many to a
hard raster is both more efficient and easier to read. Especially when
adding the floating headcell mode, which is good for just so many
things: in vanishing, it's quite hard to do and I think we won't have it
for quite some time still, in grid it's trivial, and well, it's already
there. :)

So the toggles we should add are --
floating headcells on/off
show same cell more than once on/off
use H or I or E or M or 3 or W or whatever raster (H and I are 'nuff initially)
brick mode on/off (no, wait, we have the gap structparam for that, don't we)

Also, the headcells should have a different flob path. Why is that
commented out? (The animations look very awkward currently.)

Oh, the name. "HardRaster" would make sense to us who are accustomed to
calling the non-vanishing stuff hard; but I thing GridRaster would
suggest the actual meaning much better.

All this is not urgent, but should be kept in mind -- it would be nice
to have working hard rasters with floating headcells.