W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > October 2008

RE: ISSUE: WebCGMRect::union

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:08:14 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: "Galt, Stuart A" <stuart.a.galt@boeing.com>, "Bezaire, Benoit" <bbezaire@ptc.com>, "WebCGM WG" <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
At 01:09 PM 10/2/2008 -0700, Galt, Stuart A wrote:
>I think that getUnion() would be similar to our other get/set routines.

On the other hand, the 'get' routines are simply fetching something that 
has been previously 'set'.

>But do not have very strong feelings
>one way or another.


What is more important:  the WG should approve a tentative resolution as 
soon as possible.  This is an issue that will actually block implementors 
and test writers, if I understand correctly.  Would it be a good idea to 
implement and write tests to the tentative resolution, instead of the 
actual LC spec?


>From: Bezaire, Benoit [mailto:bbezaire@ptc.com]
>Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 11:34 AM
>To: WebCGM WG
>Subject: ISSUE: WebCGMRect::union
>union() is not a good method name. Given that 'union' is a C/C++ keyword, 
>it cannot get compiled by the MIDL compiler (on Windows).
>We need a new name. Either:
>i) Union(): but we have so far, started method names using lower cap 
>ii) calcUnion() or getUnion(): or something similar.
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2008 23:09:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:40 UTC