W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: [geometry] is2D

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 05:45:43 +0000
To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
CC: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6F5442B9-85A6-4772-8F16-87901B3AC616@adobe.com>

On Jun 7, 2014, at 7:12 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Jun 7, 2014, at 6:57 AM, "Rik Cabanier" <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> All,
>> 
>> is2D [1] is a function that takes no arguments, doesn't change the state and returns a boolean.
>> Is there any reason why we can't turn it into a readonly attribute?
> What is the benefit and cost for either of both?
> 
> It's likely the same. It just seems like this should be attribute since the function has no side effects when you call it. 

Most of the informational methods[1] do not heave any side effects and donít take arguments. I think it looks weird to make some of them attributes. IMO it is easier to understand if we stick to just having m11 to m44, a to f being attributes. We can discuss it on the next call.

Greetings,
Dirk

[1] http://dev.w3.org/fxtf/geometry/#informational-methods
Received on Saturday, 7 June 2014 05:46:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:49 UTC