On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Robert O'Callahan <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Jussi Kalliokoski < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Path is also too generic even in the context of graphics. If we later on >> want to add a path object for 3-dimensional paths, you end up with Path >> and >> Path3D? Yay for consistency. Path2D would immediately inform what >> dimensions we're dealing with and also that this is to do with graphics, >> and thus sounds like a good name to me. >> > > Sounds good to me. > Elliot, what do you think, is Path2D acceptable?
