+1

It makes sense to me also. I'll move it from inbox to trunk.

Dave

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 06:51:08AM +0200, H. Hirzel wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Eliot's argument is convincing for me and I suggest that the change
> should be added to the trunk as is.
> 
> Adding another subclass just because of one method does not make sense though.
> 
> --Hannes
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Name: Graphics-cbc.372
> Author: cbc
> Time: 28 March 2017, 5:18:09.019402 pm
> UUID: 7b9783b1-87c5-3549-ac32-42acd6abcb12
> Ancestors: Graphics-eem.371
> 
> Added method to allow creating a rectangle based on teh center of the rectangle.
> 
> =============== Diff against Graphics-eem.371 ===============
> 
> Item was added:
> + ----- Method: Rectangle class>>exactCenter:extent: (in category
> 'instance creation') -----
> + exactCenter: centerPoint extent: extentPoint
> +       "Answer an instance of me whose center is centerPoint and width
> +       by height is extentPoint. "
> +       ^ self origin: centerPoint - (extentPoint / 2) extent: extentPoint
> + !
> 
> On 3/29/17, Chris Cunningham <cunningham.cb at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Hannes,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:45 AM, H. Hirzel <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Chris,
> >>>
> >>> On 3/29/17, Chris Cunningham <cunningham.cb at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > Hi,
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >
> >
> >> The kind of thinking which restricts the system, such as adding methods
> >>> that logically belong to SequenceableCollection to, say, String, simply
> >>> because the programmer wanted a String method and didn't think about
> >>> generality, is at best regrettable.
> >>
> >> I've been guilty of this in the past, and probably will in the future,
> >> but
> > I try not to be.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > A better question is should I be using Rectangle for this.  Maybe we
> >>> should
> >>> > create a 'TrueRectangle' class or something similar so that we can
> >>> actually
> >>> > talk about and share what can really be done with rectangles, instead
> >>> > of
> >>> > the 'ScreenRectangle' that we have today called Rectangle.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Why not the other way around? Add IntegralRectangle and have it
> >> specialize
> >> Rectangle.
> >>
> >>
> > Let me re-state what I think you are saying, and please correct me if I am
> > wrong.
> >
> > Make Rectangle more generic, and for instance, have the method
> > #center:extent: use #/ instead of #//.
> > Then, have a new class, IntegralRectangle, that re-implements that method
> > and sends #// to ensure that the extents are integral.
> > (and in general do whatever else is needed to relax Rectangle, and tighten
> > up IntegralRectangle).
> >
> > Right?
> >
> > If so, the main reason not to do proceed is that Rectangle is used
> > extensively in the system for today, and we'd have to replace those uses
> > with IntegralRectangle, not to mention all of the indirect uses (such as
> > #corner: that you used above, and make variants creating IntegralRectangle
> > and generic Rectangle, or otherwise resolve those ambiguities).
> >
> > That said, I'm all for it.  I'd like a less strict Rectangle for, well,
> > Rectangle uses.
> >
> > As a side note, if you look up Integral Rectangle in Google, you'll fine
> > lots of discussions that have nothing to do with this question.  But
> > Integral (integer) and Rectangle make perfect sense here in any case.
> >
> > -cbc
> >
>