> I find point - point = size quite useful in general, and it seems to make > logical sense. I agree that it makes logical sense, but I think that 'point - point = point' also makes sense, and is perhaps more frequently the right choice.
> What would you call this type, avoiding confusion with Vector<>? I guess 'Offset' is an obvious candidate, but that is probably already too overloaded. Perhaps RelativePosition or RelativePoint? On 4 January 2013 16:15, Simon Fraser <simon.fra...@apple.com> wrote: > On Jan 3, 2013, at 7:43 PM, Steve Block wrote: > >> Thanks all for the detailed replies. >> >> I wasn't aware of the distinction made between points and vectors for >> the purposes transforms. However, if I understand things correctly, >> introducing a vector type could be considered separately from the >> issue I initially raised. >> >> It seems that everyone is agreed that xxxSize should be used only when >> you really want to represent a size. A good first step would be trying >> to enforce this, such that all points and vectors are represented with >> xxxPoint. As Shawn points out, when doing this, we need to make sure >> that we continue to use the correct homogeneous coordinate for >> transforms. Removing the existing subtraction operator (xxxPoint minus >> xxxPoint returns xxxSize) might be a good place to start. > > I find point - point = size quite useful in general, and it seems to make > logical sense. > >> >> Introducing the concept of a vector could then be done in a second phase. > > What would you call this type, avoiding confusion with Vector<>? > > Simon > _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev