Subject: Re: POW 19.12.99 questions
From: sam th (sam@bur-jud-118-039.rh.uchicago.edu)
Date: Wed May 17 2000 - 12:12:05 CDT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 17 May 2000, Mike Nordell wrote:
> Mike and Alexey discussed:
>
> > > About the line color, I think an extra method to the painter
> > > is the way
> > > to do it. Rationale: Adding default arguments, that only are used
> > > once-in-a-while, is IMO waste. It could probably be added to
> > > my answer to
> > > #3 below.
> > >
> >
> > I'm sorry. I mean Color which fills a polygon.
>
> Now I might be on thin ice.
>
> polyLine() is AFAIK just what its name implies?
>
> If on the other hand you're suggesting a polyLine which also _fills_ its
> interior, I'd go for another method name and a fill color argument to it
> (like polyLineFill(..., rgb color) ).
Well, Alexey did originally suggest calling it polygon(...). I am afraid
I must take the blame for suggesting having the two functions conflated.
My rationale was that since they differed only by the specification of an
argument, they didn't need to be seperate. But I was partially acting
under the impression (mistaken) that Alexey was trying to color the
*lines*, not the spaces.
<pedantic type="error codes">
If we (we meaning you :-) create a function that fills in a polygon, but
takes as arguments an array of points, it is possible that the array will
fail to properly specify a polygon (if, say, it has only two elements).
In this case, I hope that the author will decide to return an error code.
(This might distinguish between poor point placement, or bad color choice,
or bad polygon). I hope I don't have to beg. :-)
</pedantic>
sam th
sam@uchicago.edu
http://sam.rh.uchicago.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE5ItLot+kM0Mq9M/wRAiBAAJ9JtOIfzsgJ1c77ZFtSnW1HvzmwnQCfQnrY
Xyb8w5kWsyCDFJ/bGiKEDBk=
=FWWL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Wed May 17 2000 - 12:12:10 CDT