Thanks andre Igor I'm sure that we can understand the implementation of area. I asked andre to post it because I was concerned that this difference of behavior is a bit odd. And I wanted to raise awareness and may be that we question ourselves. Now I do not have that much preconceived point of view on it.
Stef > Hello, > > VW: > (Rectangle origin: (0@0) corner: (10@10)) area. 100 > (Rectangle origin: (0@10) corner: (10@0)) area. -100 > (Rectangle origin: (10@10) corner: (0@0)) area. 100 > (Rectangle origin: (10@0) corner: (0@10)) area. -100 > > Pharo: > (Rectangle origin: (0@0) corner: (10@10)) area. 100 > (Rectangle origin: (0@10) corner: (10@0)) area. 0 > (Rectangle origin: (10@10) corner: (0@0)) area. 0 > (Rectangle origin: (10@0) corner: (0@10)) area. 0 > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> > wrote: > Give us the code! > In VW and Pharo side by side and their results > > Stef > > On Apr 6, 2011, at 10:31 AM, Andre Hora wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > To create a Rectangle in Pharo with the method Rectangle>>origin:corner:, > > you must provide the top left and the bottom right points. With others you > > have a Rectangle with area equals to zero. > > I just noticed that in VW it is possible create a Rectangle with other > > points (bottom right and top left, bottom left and top right, ...). > > So, shouldn't Pharo Rectangle allow the same? > > > > regards, > > > > -- > > Andre Hora > > > > > > > > -- > Andre Hora >
