> On 07.12.2018, at 01:29, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 01:33:57PM -0800, Chris Cunningham wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 9:46 AM Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed 5. Dec 2018 at 23:35, marcel.taeumel <Marcel.Taeumel at hpi.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I think that we got used to seeing "0 at 0 corner: 10 at 10" as a rectangle.
>>>> Like
>>>> "0 at 0 to: 10 at 10" might create a line (or an interval over points? The
>>>> same?
>>>> :-). Yet, "0 at 0 extent: 10 at 10" could also be a line or a vector.
>>>> 
>>>> I like the verb-vs-noun argument. So, following Nicolas', Eliot's, and
>>>> David's thoughts, I vote for:
>>>> 
>>>> Point >> #center:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> It's decent, but I would assume that the ARGUMENT is the center, not the
>> receiver.  As long as the callers name the variables well that might not be
>> a problem, but
>> 
>> 10 at 10 center: 5 at 5
>> 
>> reading it without the discussion here, which would you assume the center
>> to be? 10 at 10 or 5 at 5?
>> 
>> Maybe #centerWithExtent:?
>>   10 at 10 centerWithExtent: 5 at 5
>> 
> 
> +1
> 
> I think it may have been me who suggested #center: so I will say that
> I think #centerWithExtent: is more readable, and remains consistent
> with the existing #corner: and #extent: methods.
> 

Why not both?
	#centerWithExtent: AND #centerWithCorner:

:)
-t


> Dave