draw2DLine() should get line2d, not position2d dont u think?

[MasterGod]

Code: Select all

draw2DLine  (  const core::position2d< s32 > &  start,  
  const core::position2d< s32 > &  end,  
  SColor  color = SColor(255, 255, 255, 255) 

Code: Select all

irr::core::line2d< T >::line2d  (  T  xa,  
  T  ya,  
  T  xb,  
  T  yb 
 )  [inline] 

1. Why not sending draw2DLine(line2d X)?
2. Maybe change in line2d to position2d<T> a, position2d<T> b?

Is there a reason it isn't like this cause this looks to me much more simple..

What do you think?

PS: Same thing should be with line3d and such IMO..

[Halifax]

I don't really think that would be more simple. The general public is used to defining points as

x, y

and defining a line as something that passes through to points.

Overall the decision to keep it as position2d makes for a more clear API.

[BlindSide]

I agree with mastergod on this one, doesnt draw2DLine have an overload for line2d?

In fact I propose we get rid of all of this "Position2D" "Dimension2D" nonesense and just use Vector2di for everything. They are the exact same thing after all and having them as seperate classes can make using them together inefficient and cumbersome. (What you wanna define operators to exchange between all three classes!?)

Anyway thats what I think, peaceout