sf::Rect modifications in SFML 2 (important!)

[Laurent]

Hi

Today I decided to fix all the bad stuff about sf::Rect. I mainly applied what was said there:
http://www.sfml-dev.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1745

Here is a list of what has changed:
- sf::Rect now uses Width/Height instead of Right/Bottom ; this is extremely important because you'll have to change the construction parameters of all your rectangles (sorry)
- Coordinates are now handled consistently: the top-left corner is included in the rectangle's area while the right-bottom corner is excluded
- Rect::GetSize, Rect::Offset and Rect::GetCenter were no longer necessary and were removed

Tell me what you think, and if it's the right solution regarding everything that was said before

[Nexus]

Hey, this looks extremely nice. Thanks a lot for the adaptions.

Now the goal is to fix all rects. That is going to be funny... But now I can even throw away my SizeRect class.

However, I wonder why the Intersects() method is still a member and not a global function. Do you plan to keep this?

[bullno1]

Why the sudden change from bottom, right to width height? I though it was OK.

[Laurent]

However, I wonder why the Intersects() method is still a member and not a global function. Do you plan to keep this?

I know that it would be a better design, but then Intersects would be the only non-member function of sf::Rect (out of two ) and even of the whole SFML API. Weird.
So I think that I'll keep it as a member, for simplicity and consistency.

[Laurent]

Why the sudden change from bottom, right to width height? I though it was OK.

I think it's more intuitive when you think about the way coordinates are handled. Having top/left and bottom/right would suggest that they are handled the same way, but top/left is part of the rectangle's area while bottom/right is not. The start/length representation is better in my opinion.

And I originally chose right/bottom to easily allow flipped rectangles (right < left is less confusing than width < 0, I think) but it is not used anymore so there was no reason to keep this definition.

[panithadrum]

Excellent.  

[Nexus]

I know that it would be a better design, but then Intersects would be the only non-member function of sf::Rect (out of two ) and even of the whole SFML API. Weird.
So I think that I'll keep it as a member, for simplicity and consistency.

That's a good point. Now that you say it, I see that there are hardly global functions in SFML (apart from sf::Sleep(), the vector operators and maybe a few others). So you're probably right.

As far as I remember, Doxygen also has problems with global member functions. In order to list them together with the class interface, you would have to write modules and group functionality. For example, sf::Sleep() currently doesn't appear in the documentation.

Another question: Why are Rect::Offset() and Rect::GetCenter() no longer necessary? Now, one has to write

Code: [Select]

MyRect.Top += OffsetVector.x;
MyRect.Left += OffsetVector.y;and

Code: [Select]

sf::Vector2f(MyRect.Left + MyRect.Width/2.f, MyRect.Top + MyRect.Height/2.f);to achieve the same. It may be fewer work than with Right/Bottom, but it's still quite tedious...

[Laurent]

Another question: Why are Rect::Offset() and Rect::GetCenter() no longer necessary?

I think it's not worth it anymore. And they are almost never used. So again, I decided to remove them for simplicity and consistency.

[Nexus]

Okay. If it shows that there will be many users requiring those functions, you could still add them later. Better to add than to remove and break existing code.

[Tank]

I think it was a good decision, thanks. sf::Rect feels a lot for confident now.

[Warfield]

Woohoo