On 11/09/2014 2:57 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
> I'm OK with that. But just so we understand that precision cuts both
> ways, this means that:
>
> 1. { aspectRatio: { exact: 1.78 } } will always fail (as will all
> such numbers in [1])
> 2. { aspectRatio: { exact: 1.778 } } will always fail
> 3. { aspectRatio: { exact: 1.7778 } } will always fail
> 4. { aspectRatio: { exact: 1.77778 } } will always fail
> 5. { aspectRatio: { exact: 1.777778 } } will always fail
> 6. { aspectRatio: { exact: 1.7777778 } } will always fail
> 7. { aspectRatio: { exact: 1.77777778 } } will always fail
> 8. { aspectRatio: { exact: 1.777777778 } } will always fail
> 9. { aspectRatio: { exact: 1.7777777778 } } includes all 16:9 displays
> 10. { aspectRatio: min: 1.778 } excludes all 16:9 displays
> 11. { aspectRatio: max: 1.778 } includes all 16:9 displays
> 12. { aspectRatio: max: 1.777 } excludes all 16:9 displays
> 13. { aspectRatio: max: 1.333 } excludes all 4:3 displays
> 14. { aspectRatio: min: 1.333 } includes all 4:3 displays
>
Good point. Remind me again why users shouldn't be allowed to specify
the epsilon?
One user might want *exactly* one aspect ratio and another might want
something *roughly* around another ratio. Isn't this a business decision?
Gili
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 19:05:14 UTC