On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 09:28:16PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > The current code has the polygon's coordinates in the object's > > > coordinate space. > > > > That doesn't seem to be true. evas_object_polygon_point_add(obj,x,y) > > adds the point (x,y) to the list of points, not the point > > (x - min_x, y - min_y). > > Like Brian, I too had thought that the interpretation was > the poly points were taken to be rel to whatever the obj's current > position.. but that's not so. The obj's pos is taken as the min of > the poly vertex coords, and thus you are correct that the present > poly positioning semantics is mostly borked.
Yeah. My mistake there. The current code was a patch from a few months back, that was apparently only half-correct. I've reverted it. > Note that things like poly and line objs have never really > been given much attention in evas - they are still waiting for a > much more thorough rewrite at some point - and thus things there > are likely to be rather shabby right now (anyone who feels like > they would like to help setup a good, fast, path-rasterizer is more > than welcome to lend a hand :)). Anything vector-like in evas needs a once over, as it was probably quickly written and never really used :) Its pretty low priority for most of us though, so help would definitely be appreciated. > > Now, this actually brings up a question: Just what should > the interpretation be of vertex coords (in lines, polys,..), and > of the 'geometry' of such path-defined objs? > One could take the semantics to be that the vertices are > defined rel to whatever the obj's pos is, and have the obj's set > geometry clip the poly's extent. This seems more desirable to me... > A quick rundown of the options I) Absolute canvas coordinates _point_add() takes a coordinate in canvas coords, and draws that point at that coordinate, completely ignoring the object's position II) Relative object coordinates _point_add() takes a coord relative to the object, so if the poly is moved to (10,10) the point (5,5) will be drawn at (15,15). III) Polygon coordinates _point add() takes points in an abstract space. This space is located such that the origin of the object corresponds to top left of the bounding box of the polygon's points. Is the current method (without the botched patch) seems to be (I) from a quick test, but i haven't looked at the code much. From what you say above, it sounds like its SUPPOSED to be doing (III). I'm impartial as to whether (II) or (III) is better. (II) is a bit more predictable, though. As for the size clipping the poly's extents, that makes some sense, but I think the default expected behavior would be for it to be large enough to show all of its points. So, maybe it would be better to ignore the size? rephorm ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
