We could tread the receiver as extent in this case and see how it works out?

(50 at 50 center: 5 at 5) = (Rectangle center: 5 at 5 extent: 50 at 50).

Best,
Marcel


David T. Lewis 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@

> >
>> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Wed 5. Dec 2018 at 23:35, marcel.taeumel <

> Marcel.Taeumel@

> > 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.
> 
> Dave





--
Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Squeak-Dev-f45488.html