"John Torjo" <john.lists@torjo.com> wrote in message news:43426645.30304@torjo.com...
I might go further and add units (maybe defaulting to pixels)
typedef gui::rect<px,int> rect 1; typedef gui::rect<pc,double> rect 2; typedef gui:rect<mm,int> rect 3;
That looks great :)!
I disagree. I think you should stick to only one type (probably float for now, and eventually allow overriding it -- but, use this consistently throughout the app).
With all due respect users wont like having one style forced on them. Making the value_type a template is trivial.
Just think of the many places you'll need to deal with geometry (rectangle/point/size), and converting from one type of unit (px to cm, cm to in, etc) to another.
It seems like you are suggesting that users will go mad and use arbitrary units all over the place just for the fun of it. I would guess that most developers will use one unit that they are comfortable with. Conversion is common where units are chosen by the application user . Most conversions would be to - from pixels. Typically its the Americans ask to work in inches. Its actually trivial to convert anyway. I dont really see what the fuss is about.
And, about usability in code. Why would I want in my program, both: gui::rect<pc,double> and gui::rect<pc,int> ? This IMHO would confuse users of the library.
If you work in percent then usually you are happy with the granularity as an integer between 0 and 100. Why use a float.? Actually I would also like to have another unit which normalised the window dimensions to x= 1. and y =1. Floats would make perfect sense then. regards Andy Little