Re: [fxtf-drafts] [geometry-2] Proposal: Geometry Utility Methods (#602)

I guess the main point I was trying to make, is that by taking an existing tried and tested geometry library, and using that as the basis for something like this, you're going to get quite some way along with this process, by building upon all of the hard work which has already been done, rather than starting from scratch.

It also takes a lot of the guesswork out of which methods/features to add, and I'd expect common functionality under the hood will already have been refactored, meaning we'd also benefit in terms of project structure, code reuse, and performance, which tend to emerge over time in most projects, and that could also save plenty of implementation time.

A good bit of the chat above has been around implementation details, but as I say, those are already solved problems, so the basics will be in place, and the edge cases and any general weirdness will have already been dealt with as the library has matured.

It'd also answer questions regarding which data types make sense as parameters.

These benefits could all still be realised even if an initial stab at this only includes a few methods, as per the original proposal.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by ciw1973
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts/issues/602#issuecomment-3041386375 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Sunday, 6 July 2025 12:06:18 UTC