I'm a bit confused... What is the behaviour you expect?
On 6/29/06, Rikard Bosnjakovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've just learned how to use a Rect() and find them extremely useful. However, I just stumbled into a problem that confused me a lot. It's about defining a rect's bounds without using width and height. Consider this: >>> a = Rect(0, 0, 0, 0) >>> a.x, a.y = 10, 10 >>> a.height, a.width (0, 0) So far so good, a rect at (10,10) with no width, height. If the width and height is set, the rect's right and bottom-property are also set correctly: >>> a.width = a.height = 50 >>> a <rect(10, 10, 50, 50)> >>> a.right, a.bottom (60, 60) What I currently want to do is to ignore setting width/height, but set x/y/right/bottom instead. However, doing that results in this: >>> a.x = a.y = 20 >>> a.right, a.bottom = 100, 100 >>> a.x, a.y, a.height, a.width (100, 100, 0, 0) Since width/height is not defined, x and y are moved to left and bottom respectively. While thinking about it, it's surely logical in one way, but not in the way I'm trying to do. So, to conclude: is there a way to define a Rect() by using the bounding points instead of filling in height/width (letting the Rect-object do it by itself), or am I forced to calculate width/height on my own? The reason I'm asking is because in my game, a lot of surfaces relies on other surfaces' (bounding box-)positions, and when creating a new surface, it's bounding box is much more of importance than its width/height. -- Rikard.
