[Apologies in advance if this has been discussed up here before ...]

Grumble grumble grumble grumble. Grrr!

Consider the case of rectangle a and rectangle b where a happens to be 
"degenerate" in the sense that it has 0 area -- let's say that a origin y = 
a corner y -- i.e. if you draw a it looks like a horizontal line. And let's 
say that if you draw these two rectangles, a "goes inside the area of" b. 
Do they intersect? I'd sure say yes. Squeak 3.8 says yes. Squeak 4.3 says 
no. *BUT* a intersect: b in Squeak 4.3 *does return* the part of a that's 
inside b.

Looking at the code for Rectangle >> intersect: in 4.3, it sure looks to me 
like this behavior was introduced rather explicitly and deliberately.

But is it correct? I'd say no. I'd say no-brainer no. I guess maybe 
somebody is thinking that Rectangle >> intersects: should produce an answer 
that agrees with the question: does a possible intersection have area 
greater than 0? Well, sorry, but I don't think that's the right question. 
The right question is: do the two rectangles have points in common?

I have code that was very mysteriously broken by this; I've created a 
degenerate rectangle out of a line *on purpose* just to be able to get the 
intersection of a line and a rectangle. I don't see any reason why I 
shouldn't be able to do this. Set theory says I can do it. Geometry says I 
can do it. Squeak 3.8 says I can do it.

So: whichever committer out there decided that a degenerate rectangle can't 
intersect, what exactly will I break if I put back the [correct, ahem ...] 
3.8 behavior of Rectangle >> intersect: in 4.3?

I say: put the old behavior back. It wasn't wrong. The new behavior is 
wrong.

-Thanks, Jim