1

Topic: Re: the lame logic

Hello, Kodt, you wrote: And here suddenly//gfx/geometry/insets.h class GFX_EXPORT Insets {> public: constexpr Insets (): top _ (0), left _ (0), bottom _ (0), right _ (0) {} constexpr explicit Insets (int all): top _ (all), left _ (all), bottom _ (all), right _ (all) {} constexpr Insets (int vertical, int horizontal): top _ (vertical), left _ (horizontal), bottom _ (vertical), right _ (horizontal) {} constexpr Insets (int top, int left, int bottom, int right): top _ (top), left _ (left), bottom _ (bottom), right _ (right) {}... Dear experts! How you think, why I paid to this attention? Long (in characters) the initialization list cut in the lines. And short did not cut. ?

2

Re: Re: the lame logic

Basic library of geometry, all is simple and clear, a pastoral and idyll... It agree  a pastoral looks so: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0 … pestre.jpg so all is normal constexpr Rect (int x, int y, int width, int height) constexpr Insets (): top _ (0), left _ (0), bottom _ (0), right _ (0) {} Instead of x/y/width/height steels  top/left/bottom/right? The order of arguments adds a special savor.

3

Re: Re: the lame logic

O>> instead of x/y/width/height steels  left/top/right/bottom? Instead of x/y steels  TOP / LEFT. And instead of width/height - vertical/horizontal, accordingly yes the turned order I noticed and  a message later

4

Re: Re: the lame logic

5

Re: Re: the lame logic

Hello, Kodt, you wrote: O>> instead of x/y/width/height steels  left/top/right/bottom? Instead of x/y steels  TOP / LEFT. And instead of width/height - vertical/horizontal, accordingly So it insets, at them well is fine still x/y (instead of left/top and what to write instead of right/bottom?), but width/height at them precisely is not present. Nikolay, not so understood the Different classes, different properties, titles too different, quite reflecting sense.

6

Re: Re: the lame logic

Hello, Kodt, you wrote: Dear experts! How you think, why I paid to this attention? Never the expert, but I will try: 0. What for Insets? At it any distinct from Rect properties are? 1. Not serial application explicit 2. At Insets there is no designer which accepts Point, Rect. 3. Defoltnyj designer Rect does not initialize variables, and Point, Size and Insets - initializes in zero.

7

Re: Re: the lame logic

8

Re: Re: the lame logic

Hello, Kodt, you wrote: instead of x/y steels  TOP / LEFT. And instead of width/height - vertical/horizontal, accordingly On such logic this designer generally delirium any since hinders coordinates and distances: Insets (int vertical, int horizontal): top _ (vertical), left _ (horizontal), bottom _ (vertical), right _ (horizontal) {} There most likely top, left, bottom, right are offsets which will be applied to any central point. Then all looks logically

9

Re: Re: the lame logic

10

Re: Re: the lame logic

S> On such logic this designer generally delirium any since hinders coordinates and distances: S> S> Insets (int vertical, int horizontal) S>: top _ (vertical), S> left _ (horizontal), S> bottom _ (vertical), S> right _ (horizontal) {} Here all apprx. Except for carefully enclosed rake with order of coordinates.

11

Re: Re: the lame logic

D> So it insets, at them well is fine still x/y (instead of left/top and what to write instead of right/bottom?), but width/height at them precisely is not present. D> Nikolay, not so understood the Main trick in that that ordinate go in advance abscissas, sorry May a service jacket. constexpr Insets (int top, int left, int bottom, int right)

12

Re: Re: the lame logic

Hello, Kodt, you wrote: Dear experts! How you think, why I paid to this attention?////An insets represents the borders of a container (the space the container must//leave at each of its edges).//Unique strangeness, it that at them the order not as in CSS (top, right, bottom, left), and absolutely on the contrary. Can it so more conveniently, but in general it has no value for structure which describes insets.

13

Re: Re: the lame logic

Hello, Skorodum, you wrote: S> There most likely top, left, bottom, right are offsets which will be applied to any central point. Then all looks logically These are everyones border-width, padding, margin etc.

14

Re: Re: the lame logic

Apparently, in the second signature arguments go in the natural order. I so suspect it and with Inset  of many places in the natural order. Eventually it only titles of variables) I Will be surprised if it not so.

15

Re: Re: the lame logic

Hello, Kodt, you wrote: Dear experts! How you think, why I paid to this attention? Because jokes on With ++ are accessible only Kodtu. Remaining such level of an enlightenment did not reach.

16

Re: Re: the lame logic

> Dear experts! How you think, why I paid to this attention?> Because jokes on With ++ are accessible only Kodtu. Remaining such level of an enlightenment did not reach. Remaining only trite humour is accessible about that as during sex there comes a garbage collector and  to throw out a condom.

17

Re: Re: the lame logic

Hello, Kodt, you wrote: Basic library of geometry, all is simple and clear, a pastoral and idyll... Underlinings in members of a class -

18

Re: Re: the lame logic

Hello, Kodt, you wrote: Hello, ononim, you wrote: O>> instead of x/y/width/height steels  left/top/right/bottom? Instead of x/y steels  TOP / LEFT. And instead of width/height - vertical/horizontal, accordingly Yes as here once wrote are . Correctly dimension1, dimension2...

19

Re: Re: the lame logic

Hello, ononim, you wrote: D>> So it insets, at them well is fine still x/y (instead of left/top and what to write instead of right/bottom?), but width/height at them precisely is not present. D>> Nikolay, not so understood O> the Main trick in that that ordinate go in advance abscissas, sorry May a service jacket. And, now that's something like it, really, a jamb. left, top, right, bottom

20

Re: Re: the lame logic

Hello, __ kot2, you wrote: __> Hello, Kodt, you wrote:>> Basic library of geometry, all is simple and clear, a pastoral and idyll... __> underlinings in members of a class -  too it is not pleasant To me, especially in the end, but at everyone the coding style, and it is already religious question

21

Re: Re: the lame logic

Hello, Dair, you wrote: D> too it is not pleasant To me, especially in the end, but at everyone the coding style, and it is already religious question certainly. Simply I prefer not to have something, than to have something superfluous, the necessary is not clear what for. And that smells slightly of "C" before class names well and implementation of a class too the disputable. I personally would leave x and y public, than to fence gettery-setters to them https://chromium.googlesource.com/chrom … ry/point.h and, to sootv th would transfer const Point and there where would not like that someone the pens weeding these twisted. And to read - on health.

22

Re: Re: the lame logic

Hello, Dair, you wrote: D> Hello, __ kot2, you wrote: __>> underlinings in members of a class -  D> too it is not pleasant To me, especially in the end, but at everyone the coding style, and it is already religious question But what for in members of a class? I too sometimes use them, when arguments of the designer/method on sense coincide with members of a class. Then I use underlinings for arguments as - in one place, and for members of a class them everywhere it is necessary to drag arguments. Yes, I know that the compiler (in case of the designer, at least) itself understands, but  eyes all the same inconveniently, therefore and I add

23

Re: Re: the lame logic

Hello, Kodt, you wrote: At a rectangle it is connected by that it can be stored as {left, top, right, bottom} or {left, top, width, height}, - therefore either one, or other values will be accessible only through . Then it is logical to store {left, top, right, bottom} and to have methods width () and height () And if all through  - that this uniformity. All is made through

24

Re: Re: the lame logic

Hello, Marty, you wrote: M> But what for in members of a class? I too sometimes use them, when arguments of the designer/method on sense coincide with members of a class. Then I use underlinings for arguments as - in one place, and for members of a class them everywhere it is necessary to drag arguments. Yes, I know that the compiler (in case of the designer, at least) itself understands, but  eyes all the same inconveniently, therefore and I add is such    that private members need to be designated with underlining - to or after. I saw the person who quite seriously told that it to it does the code more clearly - it is visible that private, and that there is no truth, in most  stages the suffix m for members of a class and the for the transferred parameters is normally used still

25

Re: Re: the lame logic

Hello, __ kot2, you wrote: __> is such    that private members need to be designated with underlining - to or after. I saw the person who quite seriously told that it to it does the code more clearly - it is visible that private, and that there is no __> a truth, in most  stages the suffix m for members of a class is normally used still and the for the transferred parameters the Suffix "_m" is used at Microsoft for members of classes with any visibility. The same WTL, and MFC like too