+1 This feels more correct to me too. Think Jesse has begun a prototype.
>> Most probably providing a another function for forcing an orientation >> would help to solve that problem. So setting "allowed" orientations does >> nothing but affect future orientation changes, whereas forcing an >> orientation does it right now. >> > > That sounds good. That means we don't have to describe one of the "allowed" > orientations as "the one that will be forced right now", even though > presumably it would be the first listed. It also gives us more wiggle room, > perhaps allowing platforms to support "allowed" rotations without supporting > "force it right now" rotations. Easier to describe the platform deviations > that way - the function works or doesn't, not half-way. It also means we > can have a corresponding getter, to get the current orientation, keeping > everything simple and symmetric. > > // get the current rotation, returns 0|90|... > CB.rotation.current() > > // set the current rotation, value is 0|90|... > CB.rotation.current(value) > > // get the current allowed rotations, returns array of 0|90|... > CB.rotation.allowed() > > // set the current allowed rotations, value is array of 0|90|... > CB.rotation.allowed(value)
