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

RE: ISSUE: WebCGMRect::union

From: Bezaire, Benoit <bbezaire@ptc.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:47:03 -0400
Message-ID: <B0D4682CF6F84041AC7C42AA6E9E81330BCF7DF9@HQ-MAIL3.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: "WebCGM WG" <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Don proposed 'unionRect()'
I'm fine with that.
Saying this issue will block implementers and test writers is a bit
strong. It takes 5 minutes to change the implementation side and tests.
My opinion.


From: public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lofton Henderson
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 7:08 PM
To: Galt, Stuart A; Bezaire, Benoit; WebCGM WG
Subject: RE: ISSUE: WebCGMRect::union

At 01:09 PM 10/2/2008 -0700, Galt, Stuart A wrote:

	I think that getUnion() would be similar to our other get/set

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
		We need a new name. Either: 
		i) Union(): but we have so far, started method names
using lower cap characters. 
		ii) calcUnion() or getUnion(): or something similar. 
Received on Friday, 3 October 2008 12:47:43 UTC

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