On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:32:16 GMT, Andy Goryachev <ango...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> > * Use modulo arithmetic to compute the value (what this PR proposed) > > * Don't process the increment at all (i.e., treat it as an out-of-range > > request and do nothing) > > 3. fall back to amountToStepBy=1 > > try this: integer spinner, min=0. max=100, step=137. initial value 50 there > is the sequence when repeatedly pressing arrow down button: 14, 79, 43, 7, > 72, 36, 0, ... > > makes no sense. But if that's what the app says to do, and given that it's a well-defined operation (albeit not very useful in this example), there should be a good reason to ignore it. I'm not convinced that there is, but if there is, option 3 isn't it. > falling back to step=1: > > 49, 48, 47, 46, ... That's at least as arbitrary as clamping to the max value (the status quo). Clamping the result to the max says, in effect, "let's ignore the `wrap` flag" when we conclude that wrapping beyond a certain limit doesn't make sense. Setting the increment to 1 says, in effect, "let's ignore the `step` value" when we conclude that wrapping beyond a certain limit doesn't make sense. If we really are determined to not honor the step value / wrap flag when we conclude that wrapping beyond a certain limit doesn't make sense, then we should treat it as an app error and do nothing. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1431#issuecomment-2021560800
