You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It might be handy to have non-round travellers (so they look distinct from vertices, especially when carrying payloads).
This is related to #27 but would be a little easier (so maybe do this one first?): we already have a type which is currently spot or sprite. Seems like that could be
circle (synonym for spot), square, sprite
...and unlike vertices there's no complication about edges/arrowheads joining neatly.
I thought I had a specific use case here, animating a stack for a push-down automaton, and pushing round travellers (which is how I've done it in other graphs where I was putting the vertex on the stack) was going to be confusing because they would look like vertices moving... but now I don't think it's relevant because I'll probably implement them off-graph (using Pixi directly). It's almost as if having a separate stack (outside the graph and its nodes) is a whole new needed feature. Hmm.
square has the advantage of not needing any more specification config than we already have (because we could, um, repurpose radius... too dirty/lazy? Maybe height and width since we can anticipate rectangles (and PIXI supports rounded rect too).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It might be handy to have non-round travellers (so they look distinct from vertices, especially when carrying payloads).
This is related to #27 but would be a little easier (so maybe do this one first?): we already have a
type
which is currentlyspot
orsprite
. Seems like that could becircle
(synonym forspot
),square
,sprite
...and unlike vertices there's no complication about edges/arrowheads joining neatly.
I thought I had a specific use case here, animating a stack for a push-down automaton, and pushing round travellers (which is how I've done it in other graphs where I was putting the vertex on the stack) was going to be confusing because they would look like vertices moving... but now I don't think it's relevant because I'll probably implement them off-graph (using Pixi directly). It's almost as if having a separate stack (outside the graph and its nodes) is a whole new needed feature. Hmm.
square
has the advantage of not needing any more specification config than we already have (because we could, um, repurposeradius
... too dirty/lazy? Maybeheight
andwidth
since we can anticipate rectangles (and PIXI supports rounded rect too).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: