Hey Luboš, Luboš Luňák wrote: > So, yeah, I'm proposing a new standard Rectangle class (and I know > xkcd, and I'm still serious). My idea is roughly that there will be > some tools::NewRectangle (or whatever usable name), it will be more > or less like tools::Rectangle, but it'll make things clear [...] > Please don't put anything into tools anymore. Tools is a delete-only module, and needs to die. > for example: > - internal representation will be whatever sane thing will work, e.g. > x,y,width,height , and it won't matter for the API > - empty rectangle is simply width == 0 || height == 0 > - no (int, int, int, int) ctor > - we can try without bottom and right functions, or we can define what they > mean and be consistent about it (no idea, no preference) > - there will be things like FromOpenRectangle() to allow converting from/to > tools::Rectangle, making it hopefully easier to gradually move over > All sounds sane. One question: any reason not to tweak the basegfx classes to fit this model? That would avoid the N-th implementation issue, shouldn't be too onerous (given the low number of client usages), and answers Noel's question around underlying value type. Cheers, -- Thorsten
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
