| Sign In/My Account | View Cart |
| Article: |
Introduction to Cocoa Graphics, Part 2 | |
| Subject: | thinking in box, curve out of box ;-) | |
| Date: | 2001-11-19 22:42:06 | |
| From: | psheldon | |
|
Response to: changed one line of code for info
|
||
|
Lay awake and thought, what if first argument attached to first part of your method name, ...ArcFromPoint, meant to draw the arc with a compass point at that point . It didn't make sense to say append... as well as remind the point you were at to append to, so an alternate hypothesis on that argument dawned on me and seemed to have biasing evidence toward it . Well, setting the radius at 200.0 drew the curve with that radius and tangent to the other parts of the Bezier path outside the cliprect or whatever it is now called, but for thrills I tried other than Apple pie hypothesis radii that were too short. Now, this method is drawing an Apple dent, but, not with the compass point at the apex where I thought I had put it, but out there off cliprect in the opposite direction so as to insure tangency. I tried various floats smaller than 200.0. Negative radius drew nothing nor did fill with the apex from point. Summary, I got it to draw but did not confirm my alternate interpretation of the argument due to redundancy dissonance, that interpretation being I was placing a compass point. I'm still lost and maybe now ready to sleep for that heuristic rather than constantly rise with blind haymaker hypotheses. |
||
Showing messages 1 through 9 of 9.
I was, at first, frustrated that I couldn't color code the paths differently to remember who did what and then I started in my mind to grasp what was going on without color coding by commenting out certain strokes.
The fog cleared. I always start with intense fog and then I get smart.
I rewrote the code so I could have one place to change p1's x coordinate etc. and see what happened and confirmed your hypothesis really good in all cases except the one you gave which was only confirmed by your "robust fuzzy thinking".
I must train in a pool doing laps now, but brief you on the results here :
I got arcs to draw precisely from p1 to be tangent to that imaginary line as I lengthened what I called the base (line p1-p2) by moving p2 away farther. With the staging in variables I only had to change the value of float x2=...; and I saw many cases exactly confirming your hypothesis.
When you get such confirmation, you get hot and closer to writing the prose like Carolyn Rose! You have the confidence of sufficient events and all the hidden struggles behind your writing.
;-)