Ah, thanks. I saw that 'rect-like' but dismissed it. Next time I should do more due-diligence.
On 4/12/09, René Dudfield <[email protected]> wrote: > awesome! Just in time too, since we need complete tests for the py3k work > happening now. > > Committed revision 2009. > > > One thing I noticed is that the collidedict moved from checking the key of > the rect, to checking the value of the dict. The docs didn't specify if the > key or the value was used. > > This makes sense since, rects can not be keys. However keys can be > rect-like objects - tuples etc. I found only some code which used > this(using google codesearch) - so we should still keep it using the keys > for backwards compatibility. > > I added an argument to collidedict(adict, values=0) . So you can use the > values, or the keys of a dict. It defaults to keys for backwards > compatibility. > > What I didn't do yet, was change the src/rect.doc to add new argument to > collidedict(adict, values=0) /collidedictall arguments. Will also need to > clear up what they do with the keys/values - since currently the docs don't > address that at all. > > Once the docs are changed you run the makeref.py script to update the docs. > > > cheers, > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 6:19 AM, Sean Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hey, > > > > I finished up the 'todo' test cases for Rect. > > > > When doing them, I found a bug for rect.collidedict and > > rect.collidedictall, it was checking the keys instead of the value, so > > I did that quick fix. > > > > I did a svn diff > rect.patch (attached) > > > > Let me know if this is how one contributes, this is my first time and > > I feel kind of awkward. > > > > -Sean > > > >
