Sure, any other point on the circle defined by this diameter would be a valid vertex...
Nicolas 2013/2/14 Frank Shearar <[email protected]>: > On 14 February 2013 17:27, Nicolas Cellier > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't want nothing, but you inherit from very specialized class >> historically used to draw on pixel boundaries... >> A rectangle that you cannot even rotate, common ;) > > You can't define a unique rectangle with only two points anyway, if > you permit them to be rotated - consider the flipped version / > reflected in the line between the two points. > > When you add the constraint that their sides must be > horizontal/vertical you remove a degree of freedom, and then you get > unique rectangles. > > frank > >> Nicolas >> >> 2013/2/14 Igor Stasenko <[email protected]>: >>> On 14 February 2013 18:10, Nicolas Cellier >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> That means you probably need to change some graphics primitives. >>>> >>>> If you want to go this way (have mathematical geometric objects), then >>>> I think you're on the step off Juan Morphic 3... >>>> >>> well, how you can reason about intersecting rectangles without using >>> geometry? >>> >>> i do not want a rectangle which is not a rectangle in common sense, >>> but rectangle in "our" sense, >>> just because it fits us better. >>> >>> >>>> Nicolas >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Igor Stasenko. >>> >> >
