Battery applet and KIcon

[Marco Martin]

On Monday 15 February 2010, Zack Rusin wrote:
> On Sunday 14 February 2010 18:24:51 Marco Martin wrote:
> > > QRectF makeUniform(const QRect &orig,
> > > 
> > > 		const QRect &dst)
> > 
> > oring and dist shouldn't them be QRectF in the signature?
> 
> only if we care about it being anywhere close to correct. definitely should
> :)
> 
> > ok, let's see if i got what this does :)
> > if an element has the geometry(10.5, 10.5, 30,30), we want to render it
> > at (0,0,30,30)  we'll render at (0.5, 0.5, 29.5, 29.5) making aligned
> > the edge
> > 
> >  in the oringin that would otherwise have been rendered between two
> >  pixels
> > 
> > but don't quite understand why the size gets changed?
> 
> it shouldn't. i should've used moveCenter or such. the size should stay the
> same, we just want to align it. basically just do the best we can within
> the size that we were given.

ok, with those two changes things are much more clear ;)

> all in all the size could and possibly should be changed by the offset
> itself, but that could be fixed later.
yeah, worth a try
> so as you mentioned, it's easiest to see within identity transform:
> orig = QRectF(0.5, 0.5, 32, 32)
> dst = QRectF(10, 10, 32, 32)
> hence transform = identity, offset = 0.5 and so
> true dst = QRectF(10.5, 10.5, 32, 32);
> 
> with scaling things get hairy, there are two possibilities here they are:
> true dst = QRectF(
> 	offset * div_w + dst.x(),
> 	offset * div_h + dst.y(),
> 	dst.width(), dst.height());
> and
> true dst = QRectF(
> 	offset + offset * div_w + dst.x(),
> 	offset + offset * div_h + dst.y(),
> 	dst.width(), dst.height());

will try both :)

> (btw, in res.adjust in the last email instead of "offset / div" it should
> say offset * div).
> 
> for the case above that would be:
> orig = QRectF(0.5, 0.5, 32, 32)
> dst = QRectF(0, 0, 16, 16)
> hence transform = scale(0.5, 0.5), offset = 0.5 * scale = 0.25 and so
> true dst = QRectF(0.25, 0.25, 16, 16);
> or
> true dst = QRectF(0.75, 0.75, 16, 16);
>
> the code i've sent in the other email does the first, but it's possible
> that #2 looks better or as mentioned in the last email it's possible that
> just skipping the divisor looks ok so
i'll try both and see how it looks 

> true dst = QRectF(0.5, 0.5, 16, 16)
> but i sorta doubt that because mathematically it doesn't seem to make sense
> to me, but hey, when it comes to esthetic's lots of things doesn't make
> sense to me.

eh, usually are the matematically correct things that are pretty, somtimes the 
utterly irrational too ;)

Cheers, 
Marco Martin