Re: Bug 23935 - Proposal: New syntax for constraints

On 13/12/2013 7:51 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
> On 12/13/2013 6:25 PM, cowwoc wrote:
>> On 13/12/2013 4:06 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
>>> On 12/13/13 2:43 PM, cowwoc wrote:
>>>> I don't see how you could express the following constraints all at 
>>>> once:
>>>>
>>>>  1. For aspect ratio 4/3, require resolutions from 800x600 to
>>>>     1600x1200, prefer 1200x900
>>>>  2. For aspect ratio 16/9, require resolutions from 1280x720 to
>>>>     1920x1080, prefer 1600x900
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here you're saying "I must have these mandatory constraints OR these 
>>> other mandatory constraints". That's way beyond what you can express 
>>> today! That hardly seems fair. How come you didn't like my 
>>> declarative syntax then?
>>
>> It's not about playing "fair". It's about testing how legitimate 
>> use-cases get expressed by the various proposals.
>>
>>> With my original declarative syntax this is a piece of cake:
>>>
>>> [
>>>   { width: 1200, height: 900 },
>>>   { width: 1600, height: 900 },
>>>   {
>>>     aspect: { min: 1.33, max: 1.34 },
>>>     width: { min: 800, max: 1600 },
>>>     height: { min: 600, max: 1200 }
>>>   },
>>>   {
>>>     aspect: { min: 1.77, max: 1.78 },
>>>     width: { min: 1280, max: 1920 },
>>>     height: { min: 720, max: 1080 }
>>>   },
>>> ]
>>>
>>> Can I write you down as supporting it? ;-)
>>
>> It's not clear to me how browser is meant to implement the above 
>> dictionary. I mean, does it scan from top to bottom and stop on the 
>> first match?
>
> Yes. Or non-procedurally speaking, it's a list of preferred 
> configurations.

Okay. There is a lot of implicitness going on there. Meaning, the first 
line is implicitly tied to an aspect ratio of 4:3 but it's not obvious 
that that is the case. From a readability point of view, I was hoping to 
tie condition 1 and 3 together and 2 and 4 together.

Gili