Re: Bug 23935 - Proposal: New syntax for constraints

On 13/12/2013 1:33 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
> 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 :.
>

How would I specify the following?

I *need* any resolution between: 800x600 and 1600x1200
And ideally I *want*: 1200x900

Gili