[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] ledger lines
From: |
Rune Zedeler |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] ledger lines |
Date: |
Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:40:44 +0200 (MET DST) |
User-agent: |
IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.6 |
Citat Juergen Reuter <address@hidden>:
> > You can also simulate the effect that you want, by
> > using a negative padding (of - blot/2) when combining the molecules.
>
> This is actually an argument on my side: You can simulate the effect
> that
> you want with my rounded box by reducing the dimensions by -blot/2.
Well, first of all the dimensions (size) should be reduced by blot, not just by
blot/2. Ofcourse this is done by moving the edges of the box blot/2 in opposite
directions, alright.
Well, but this (your) approach does not handle situations where the dimensions
are less than blot-diameter in which case your routine would be called with a
negative size-argument - and hopefully nobody expects that the routine should
cope in a reasonable way with that.
I consider it easier to take special care of small values in the box-drawing
routine (i.e. by reducing blot-diameter) - and hence I (still) prefer the "old"
(exclusive) way of blotting.
> This
> is in so far an advantage, as the user of rounded box is responsible
> for
> proper handling of the dimensions rather than the drawing routine
> internally doing some magic max/min calculations which, I think, are
> necessary if the box width or length is below blotdiameter.
We agree that your approach leaves the special cases to the user while HanWen's
approach leave them to the boxing-routine.
We don't agree which is the best...
I just think that leaving it to the user results in the same min-max-code being
copy-pasted all over the source rather than leaving it in the same place (the
box-routine).
-Rune
- Re: [PATCH] ledger lines, (continued)