Re: comments on Matrix

no,

only at the end if they want to be sure that the output makes sense.
Otherwise, just use the values.

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 21, 2013, at 11:39 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> SVG matrix throws an exception and since this is a drop-in replacement,
> >> Matrix needs to throw one too :-(
> >
> > Are we sure about that?  I'd prefer to look at some SVGMatrix-using
> > code to see if it actually relies on singular matrixes throwing, or if
> > it just assumes they never will (my assumption) or simply ignores
> > failure.  If either of the latter, we should feel free to change
> > behavior.
> >
> >> Most libraries seem to return a boolean to say that a inversion failed
> which
> >> seems better. I *believe* adding an exception to JS also forces the
> creation
> >> of an exception object every time which is expensive.
> >
> > Only if you actually throw it.  It's not eagerly created every call.
> >
> >> Why don't we add another Inverse:
> >>
> >> boolean Inverse(Matrix);
> >>
> >> We could also move to unrestricted doubles so we can populate the matrix
> >> with NaN or Inf if needed.
> >
> > Yes, that seems fine.
>
>
> That sounds weird. Users would actually never be able to rely on the
> matrix values and would need a sanity check of the matrix the whole time.
> Note that this is not at all the case for current implementations nor
> graphic libraries.
>
> Dirk
>
> >
> > ~TJ
> >
>