This is interestingly the same problem that made a lot of people believe two thousand years were full at the end of 1999/ beginning of 2000. Two thousand years were full at the END of 2000/ beginning of 2001:
Full year 1 has the left 0, the right 1 and the width = right-left = 1 year, ..., full years 1 to 2000 have the left 0, the right 2000 and the width = right-left = 2000 years. > Dar S. wrote: > I like this interpretation. I don't think it is a popular view, but it makes > sense to me. > I would change the range wording, though, to something like this: > Pixel 0 ranges from 0 to 1. > For example, the rect of a card has zeros. > Maybe it depends on whether one wants to draw pixels on the intersections of > the lines > on the graph paper, or in between. No, this is math, not an interpretation. If you agree that counting pixels is one-based then there is no pixel 0. Rect (0,0,0,0) has left 0, right 0, top 0, bottom 0, width 0 and height 0, contains 0 pixels. In fact it is degenerated to the point (0,0). Rect (0,0,1,1) is one pixel, the first pixel on your coordinate system. It has left 0, right 1, top 0, bottom 1 and width 1, height 1. The width of a rect is the number of its pixel columns, the height of a rect is the number of its pixel rows, width*height of a rect is the number of its enclosed pixels. If you wisth to count zero-based the you have to redefine width and height. _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
