Re: [Bug 26526] Fix aspect ratio constraint

On 11/09/2014 3:21 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
> On 9/11/14 3:02 PM, cowwoc wrote:
>> Good point. Remind me again why users shouldn't be allowed to specify 
>> the epsilon?
>
> Because it is too complicated and redundant when { aspectRatio: { 
> exact: 16/9 } } always works?
>
>> One user might want *exactly* one aspect ratio and another might want 
>> something *roughly* around another ratio. Isn't this a business 
>> decision?
>
> Use { aspectRatio: { min: 16/9 - business_epsilon/2, max: 16/9 + 
> business_epsilon/2 } }

Agreed, but then why have a built-in epsilon on top of the business 
epsilon? This makes it hard for people to gauge what actual values 
they'll get. When I ask for a specific value, or a specific min/max I 
expect *exactly* those values (or a huge epsilon so I can't tell the 
difference).

Gili

Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 19:26:20 UTC