Nathan wrote:
> > I'm impartial as to whether (II) or (III) is better.
> > (II) is a bit more predictable, though.
>
> I think it depends what you expect from resizing as to which is more
> predictable. If you want scaling then (III) is more predictable, but
> if you want clipping then (II) is. The problem with (II) is that you
> can easily emulate the clipping behavior with a clip rect, but
> scaling would require the user to iterate over the points themselves
> and scale their locations manually.
>
> > As for the size clipping the poly's extents, that makes some sense,
> > but I think the default expected behavior would be for it to be
> > large enough to show all of its points. So, maybe it would be
> > better to ignore the size?
>
> This should probably behave like images for initial sizing. If images
> have an initial size equal to their image size, then the polygon
> should assume a 1:1 scale and have an initial size large enough to
> contain all of their points.
>
> Sound reasonable?
Yes. Probably better than my 'clipping' suggestion. :)
jose.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
