On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> >> wrote: >> >> What's the use case for this constructor? >> > >> > Which one? I guess I don'thave a use-case for these right now. Let's >> drop >> > them and we can add them later if they turn out to be useful. >> >> I prefer going the other way - having constructable interfaces unless >> there's a reason not to do so. >> > > Actually yes, for writing tests for convertRectFromNode and > convertQuadFromNode I need constructors that let me construct arbitrary > DOMRects and DOMQuads. Is that a valid use-case? I think so :-). > > For DOMRect I suggest: > [Constructor(double left, double top, double width, double height)] > For DOMQuad: > [Constructor(DOMRect rect), > Constructor(DOMPoint p1, DOMPoint p2, DOMPoint p3, DOMPoint p4)] > > One question about the DOMRect constructor: Should we allow negative > width/height? I think not. (And APIs should never create DOMRects with > negative width/height.) > Why should we not allow a negative height? > > For DOMQuad, should we allow self-intersecting quads? I can't see a reason > not to. > > Rob > -- > Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni > le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa > stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, > 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp > waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w * > * >Received on Friday, 20 September 2013 03:51:14 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:32 UTC