For some reason the message below was delayed a while and thus is out of order.
Looking back, I see hh has been mentioning things like first pixel and counting pixels. This might be where there is confusion. I was referring to pixels by the LiveCode reference. > On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:13 PM, Dar Scott Consulting via use-livecode > <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > When we apply math, we must map what we see to our mathematical models. What > we see is LiveCode. The application of math is thus an interpretation. (The > interpretation of calendar year or how-old-are-you might not apply.) > > I do agree with you, except for the part that one has to redefine width and > height. A delta does not depend on the offset. > > If I create a line from 0,0 to 100,0; I get a line visible on the card, not a > line just off the card. The LiveCode line is between the coordinates we are > talking about, that is, a half pixel moved in from those, creating pixel > coordinates off from what we are saying. > > I can get the same thing with a rectangle of rect 0, 0, 101, 1. Well, if the > border width is zero and the fill color is set. This uses the coordinates we > are talking about. The rectangle is filled. > > The one-pixel width of the line causes it to fill that space. If there is a > 1-pixel square as a brush and it went from 0.5 to 100.5, it would sweep out > the same space as the rectangle > > However, others might have a view, an interpretation, that also works. > > > >> On Jun 14, 2019, at 3:04 PM, hh via use-livecode >> <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: >> >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
