You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 23, 2024. It is now read-only.
In component transformations, we define ScaleX and ScaleY. Ideally only one should value be required when x and y scale are the same.
There are three options (the default scale factor is 1.0):
Each value needs to be specified if it's different from the default. So when x == y and x != default, both need to be specified (this is the current situation, as implented by rcjktools).
If ScaleY is missing, it should default to whatever ScaleX is. Downside: need two values if x != default and y == default
If ScaleY is missing, it should default to whatever ScaleX is if a certain flag has been set, else default to 1.0.
Option 3 is most compact, but perhaps it is trying too hard to solve a relatively rare case. It may not be worth the added complexity.
I'm leaning towards option 2.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I also like option two best. However then you get to the case where HaveScaleX is false but HaveScaleY is true and that's undefined. So the scheme needs to be renamed at least.
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
In component transformations, we define
ScaleX
andScaleY
. Ideally only one should value be required when x and y scale are the same.There are three options (the default scale factor is 1.0):
Each value needs to be specified if it's different from the default. So when
x == y and x != default
, both need to be specified (this is the current situation, as implented byrcjktools
).If
ScaleY
is missing, it should default to whateverScaleX
is. Downside: need two values ifx != default and y == default
If
ScaleY
is missing, it should default to whateverScaleX
is if a certain flag has been set, else default to 1.0.Option 3 is most compact, but perhaps it is trying too hard to solve a relatively rare case. It may not be worth the added complexity.
I'm leaning towards option 2.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: