On Jun 5, 2014, at 18:34 , Rik Cabanier <caban...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Robert O'Callahan <rob...@ocallahan.org> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Rik Cabanier <caban...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> ... > > >> Then there's this case: >> var m = new DOMMatrix(); >> m.translate(-1,-1); >> m.translate(1,1); >> m.isIdentity() == false >> >> I'm OK with that. Maybe we do need a better name though. Invert the >> meaning and call it "maybeHasTransform()"? >> > > That sounds good to me.
That just feels very wrong. I understand not having an isIdentity() method as Benoit proposes. The argument being “is identity question is more complicated than you think, so we won’t let you ask it, and instead you have to do it manually, which means you understand what’s going on”. I don’t understand having isIdentity() method and having it return false when you actually have an identity transform. If it was “hasBeenModified()” or some such, I can understand having it behave that way. I’d much rather have “isIdentityExactly()” or "isCloseToIdentity(float tolerance)” for a given definition of tolerance. Or not have it at all and write the JS utility myself. -- - Milan _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
