Rik Cabanier, 2013-09-18 00:32 (Europe/Helsinki):
You are speaking as a developer, not as a user of a web application.
Browser could offer a 'debug' more where they break on bad calls or output
messages to the console.
Once it's 'released', the runtime should be permissive.
I somewhat agree. Ho
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013, Rik Cabanier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> >
> > Dramatically simplifying the situation here, we're saying that the
> > available options are:
> >
> > A: All buggy applications fail to compile, because of static checking.
> >Cost to fix th
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> >
> > I'm not a fan of "sweep it under the carpet" bug handling, personally.
> > It drives me crazy that JavaScript has no type checking, no argument
> > checking, etc. So many bugs that should be caught at compile time, or
> > at least at runtime whe
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>
> (choose B over C)
>
I meant C over B of course.
Rob
--
Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> A: All buggy applications fail to compile, because of static checking.
>Cost to fix the bugs is low.
>
> B: All buggy applications break entirely when edge cases are hit.
>Cost to fix the bugs is moderate.
>
> C: Some buggy application
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2013, Rik Cabanier wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 17 Sep 2013, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not a fan of "sweep it under the carpet" bug handling,
> > > > > person
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013, Rik Cabanier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Sep 2013, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not a fan of "sweep it under the carpet" bug handling,
> > > > personally. It drives me crazy that JavaScript has no type
> > > > che
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2013, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not a fan of "sweep it under the carpet" bug handling, personally.
> > > It drives me crazy that JavaScript has no type checking, no argument
> > > checking, etc. So many bugs that sh
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Rik Cabanier wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I think the exception on negative radius should also be removed.
>> >
>> > What would a negative radius mean?
>>
>> Either treat it as zero, or use the absolute value. Avoiding exceptio
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Rik Cabanier wrote:
> >> I think the API should look like this:
> >>
> >> void ellipse(unrestricted double x, optional unrestricted double y,
> >> unrestricted double radiusX,
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Rik Cabanier wrote:
> >
> > 1. Why are most of the [ellipse] parameters not optional?
>
> It's supposed to be the same as arc(), but with radius split into radiusX
> and radiusY, and with the addition of the rotation argum
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Rik Cabanier wrote:
>> I think the API should look like this:
>>
>> void ellipse(unrestricted double x, optional unrestricted double y,
>> unrestricted double radiusX, optional unrestricted double radiusY, optional
>> unres
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Rik Cabanier wrote:
>
> 1. Why are most of the [ellipse] parameters not optional?
It's supposed to be the same as arc(), but with radius split into radiusX
and radiusY, and with the addition of the rotation argument.
> So, if you want to draw a simple circle, you have to su
Sorry,
I meant that argument is needed so it can't be optional.
Sent from my Windows Phone
--
From: Robert O'Callahan
Sent: 4/30/2013 11:40 PM
To: Rik Cabanier
Cc: WHATWG
Subject: Re: [whatwg] canvas 2d's ellipse
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:11 P
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
> no, that one's needed :-)
> For some reason in Webkit every argument is optional.
>
That's a well-known Webkit bug.
Even if you think 'y' should be optional, you definitely can't have 'y' be
optional and radiusX not optional, which is what y
no, that one's needed :-)
For some reason in Webkit every argument is optional.
I think the exception on negative radius should also be removed.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> I don't think you wanted "y" to be optional there :-)
>
> Rob
> --
> q“qIqfq qyqoquq qlqoqv
I don't think you wanted "y" to be optional there :-)
Rob
--
q“qIqfq qyqoquq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qlqoqvqeq qyqoquq,q qwqhqaqtq
qcqrqeqdqiqtq qiqsq qtqhqaqtq qtqoq qyqoquq?q qEqvqeqnq qsqiqnqnqeqrqsq
qlqoqvqeq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqeqmq.q qAqnqdq qiqfq qyqoquq
qdqoq qgqoqoqd
I think the API should look like this:
void ellipse(unrestricted double x, optional unrestricted double y,
unrestricted double radiusX, optional unrestricted double radiusY, optional
unrestricted double rotation, optional unrestricted double startAngle,
optional unrestricted double endAngle, optio
People on the blink team are starting to implement 'ellipse' [1].
Looking at this API, I have a couple of questions:
1. Why are most of the parameters not optional?
Currently, none of the parameter to ellipse are optional.
So, if you want to draw a simple circle, you have to supply 8 parameters,
e
19 matches
Mail list logo
