Re: Bug 23935 - Proposal: New syntax for constraints

On 12/13/13 1:07 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
> And if we truly truly can't live without promptless denial, we could 
> add a 'required' sub-key, like this:
>
> [ { width: 4096, height: 2160 },
>   { width: 3840, height: 2160 },
>   { width: 2880, height: 1800 },
>   { width: { min: 1024, required: true }, height: { min: 768, 
> required: true } }
> ]
>
> This also makes mandatory slightly harder to specify by accident, 
> which we said we wanted.
>
> Detail: we'd need to accept a 'value' key to use 'required' with plain 
> values:
>
> [ { width: 2880 },
>   { height: { value: 1800, required: true },
>
> Here, width is optional and height is mandatory. In this example, 
> width still goes first, which you couldn't do before.
>
> Thoughts?

Actually, much simpler, make it a constraint:

[ { width: 4096, height: 2160 },
   { width: 3840, height: 2160 },
   { width: 2880, height: 1800 },
   { width: { min: 1024 }, height: { min: 768 }, required: true }
]

and

[ { width: 2880 },
   { height: 1800, required: true },

Here, width is optional and height is mandatory.

.: Jan-Ivar :.