[squeak-dev] The Inbox: Graphics-cbc.372.mcz
Bob Arning
arning315 at comcast.net
Thu Mar 30 11:37:50 UTC 2017
It strikes me that a more generic Rectangle would
- not necessarily have a position
- not necessarily be orthogonal to Cartesian axes
On 3/29/17 5:54 PM, Chris Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Eliot Miranda
> <eliot.miranda at gmail.com <mailto:eliot.miranda at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Hannes,
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:45 AM, H. Hirzel
> <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com <mailto:hannes.hirzel at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> On 3/29/17, Chris Cunningham <cunningham.cb at gmail.com
> <mailto: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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20170330/9a1cab89/attachment.html>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|