Thanks Dan!

> I have always strongly disliked this particular convention.
>
> Someone else was in charge of arithmetic (mainly LargeInts)
> when we settled on the ST-80 standard and I withdrew from the
> fray after expressing my opposition.  I was told that a lot of
> mathematicians (which I am not, in the formal sense) expect
> integer division to truncate toward negative infinity, and I
> had to trust that this was a good decision for Smalltalk.

Do we have any mathematicians around here who could shed light on the issue?

> I seriously considered "fixing" this when we did Squeak,
> but it would have been a disastrous incompatibility with
> the rest of the community.

Oh, really - is this in the blue book? Actually, I wouldn't worry that much
but I just had this interesting experience when I tried to change WarpBlt
and suddenly, when I rotated the guy everything was totally off ;-)

BTW, actually you might be able to help me here - the thing I was trying to
do is to change warpblt so that instead of operating on "pixel centers" it
works on "pixel boundaries" as input (e.g., "corners" instead of
"innerCorners"). The problem with pixel centers is that when you throw in a
generic transform and try to figure out "what the pixel centers are" there
isn't really nice and effective solution (at least none that I could find)
whereas when you operate on pixel boundaries you can easily adjust for this
in the sampling of WarpBlt itself (it actually simplifies the code ;-)

But if you have any idea how to map the "outer corners" via a full (say
matrix) transform to pixel centers so that WarpBlt creates pixel-precise
results I'd be really glad to hear about it.

Cheers,
  - Andreas