Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: the UI viewport logic.. someone please help my understanding?
Re: the UI viewport logic.. someone please help my understanding?
From: Jonathan Gordon <jdgordy_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:48:13 -0700
2009/10/28 Thomas Martitz <thomas.martitz_at_student.htw-berlin.de>:
> Exactly that's why it's a property. It's a characteristic that describes a
> certain part of it, without doing something to it.
yes, but its redundant... its not needed... the exact same can be
achieved by just using the setting. ("no but that ties it to the
theme"... "no it doesn't"... "yes it does".... etc...)
> Your proposal doesn't just change the place they get it from.
no it doesnt... screens would still call _get_defaults or _fullscreen,
but the code behind them will be simpler. (And im now annoyed I'm at
work and cant look at the code to prove my point... but anyway I didnt
want to talk code in this discussion)
> That consistency in the code isn't existent. Neither viewport_set_defaults()
> nor _fullscreen() check in which screen one currently is. There's no
> thinking or checking. There's no such check at all in any of the related
> areas. It just depends on what of the both functions you call, which existed
> before sbs.
> The former gets you the current UI viewport (no matter whether there's an
> sbs or not), the latter gets you the the maximized viewport minus statusbar
> area (no matter whether there's an sbs or not).
ok, time to take a step back... how can _fullscreen() not be returning
the real full screen?! that really makes no sense... now, if it was
named get_fullscreen_minus_sbs_area() or simply _get_defaults() I
could understand... but fullscreen implies it gets the whole
> And of course you create what I mentioned. You remove the ability to
> separate non-sb area from draw-lists-in-this area which is quite. You also
> make the behavior of a unrelated user setting dependent of on the existence
> of sbs.
"which is quite." ... what? please proofread your emails... they are
getting harder to understand. I dont understand this paragraph.
I'm arguing entirely with logic, so if you come up with an example of
how my suggestion would break anything then show me... (Or show that
my logic is flawed)
Received on 2009-10-28