- From: Jonathan Watt <jonathan.watt@strath.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:11:00 +0100
- To: www-svg@w3.org
Kevin Lindsey wrote: >>So the SVGMatrix stored by an SVGTransform should be its own private >>copy? I.e. the SVGMatrix object passed into setMatrix() and returned by >>the attribute matrix, are not the same SVGMatrix object as the one >>stored by the SVGTransform object? > > > That is my understanding. I don't have it handy otherwise I check, but you > may want to look at what Batik is doing. Chances are they are using the > correct interpretation since some of the developers are on the working > group. Ahh, I just uninstalled Java because I ran out of HDD space. Any chance anyone else happens to know what Batik does? Or any WG people listening? >>Obviously the answer to that question makes quite a difference to the >>outcome of the following script. >> >>var matrix1 = getANewSVGMatrix(); >>var transform = getANewSVGTransform(); >>transform.setMatrix(matrix1); >>var matrix2 = transform.matrix; >>matrix1.a += 2; >>matrix2.b += 2; >> >>If SVGTransform objects don't keep their own private SVGMatrix object >>then the changes to matrix1 and matrix2 would affect each other and >>transform. > > > Right. This may be a good example of why the matrix attribute is defined the > way it is. Since SVGMatrix maintains its own private copy, matrix1 and > matrix2 would be independent of one another. > > Kevin Hmm. Perhaps a name other than *set*SVGMatrix would have been less confusing, but it's too late now I guess. Thanks very much for your replies Kevin! Much appreciated. :) Jonathan
Received on Friday, 11 June 2004 17:11:13 UTC