On Sunday 27 October 2002 7:41 am, Rob Lahaye wrote:
> Angus Leeming wrote:
> > On Thursday 24 October 2002 12:56 pm, Rob Lahaye wrote:
> >>Now I think of it, we may better use "scale = -1" (or any
> >>negative value) to indicate the use of width/height.
> >> Checking "scale < 0" is safer than checking "scale == 0.0",
> >> isn't it?
> >
> > Nah. What we have is fine. If implemented correctly.
>
> Angus,
>
> I don't like the way "scale == 0.0" is implemented now:
>
> lyx::float_equal(igp.scale, 0.0, 0.05)
>
> I still prefer using positive value for scaling, otherwise
> width/height. Advantages with this are:
But it's incorrect. As I see it, these are the correct implemetations:
some_float >= 0.0
lyx::float_equal(some_float, 0.0, 0.05) || some_float > 0.0
some_float > 0.0
!lyx::float_equal(some_float, 0.0, 0.05) && some_float > 0.0
Perhaps those others in the "LyX community" whose brains are
active this morning will confirm this.
Thereafter, why not write four little helper functions
lyx::greater(float var, float val, float tol);
lyx::greater_equal(float var, float val, float tol);
lyx::less(float var, float val, float tol);
lyx::less_equal(float var, float val, float tol);
that merely encapsulate the above?
Angus
