Rectangle::aspectRatio

General JUCE discussion
1

What about adding a method in your new template Rectangle class:

/** This is an handy method to get the width / height ratio */
T ar(const bool invert = false) const { return invert ? height / width : width / height; }

And also, please, oh please, let x and y public in the Point class (it’s such a pain to type pos.getX() instead of pos.x for no additional safety).

2

Ok, but I think I’ll give it a more intelligible name than “ar”!

Not convinced about the point request… When I changed my code to use more Points, I found that most of the operations where I used to do the math on x and y co-ords could be replaced by manipulating the Point objects directly, rather than by pulling out their x and y values.

3

Yes, my mistake I’ve put aspectRatio in my code, but I’m so used to visualassist that I usually only type the initials.

About Point, well, it’s because you’ve removed most method with the x, y params for the Point based method, but some still exists (like drawImageTransformed, or drawImageAt), so for the interim step, it’s a pain to replace “x, y” by “pt.getX(), pt.getY()”. Anyway, it’s not that important, but I don’t really think the “get/set” here are useful at all, as the point x and y member will never change.

4

Well, it’s not actually an immutable class - if it was, then I’d be happy to make x and y const and expose them, but it just feels wrong in something like this.

5

I meant, the point class will always have a “x” and “y” member (it’s unlikely you’ll change this, am I right?)
Anyway, the Point class is the classroom example where private member aren’t always welcome.

6

Up for this feature, here’s another code:

    /** Get the proportional dimension while respecting the rectangle aspect ratio. */
    ValueType getProportionalWidth (const ValueTree height) const throw()                      { return height * w / h; }
    /** Get the proportional dimension while respecting the rectangle aspect ratio. */
    ValueType getProportionalHeight (const ValueTree width) const throw()                      { return width * h / w; }
7

I’m afraid I don’t understand the description, or what you might use it for?

8

Well, looking at the code I’ve written, I find this pattern multiple time:

Rectangle bounds = getBounds();
float ar = bounds.getWidth() / bounds.getHeight();
g.drawImage(img1, ar * getHeight() / 2, getHeight() / 2, ....); // Keep aspect ratio for the image (drawImageTransformed doesn't do this) 
g.drawImage(img2, ar * getHeight() / 2, getHeight() / 2, ....); // Keep aspect ratio for the image (drawImageTransformed doesn't do this) 

or 
resized()
{
     comp->setBounds(...);
     otherComponent->setBounds(comp->getRight(), comp->getY(), 64, comp->getAspectRatio() * 64); // Want the otherComponent to be proportional to comp in height but 64px wide
}

This can be rewritten more explicitely to :
g.drawImage(img, getBounds().getProportionalWidth(getHeight() / 2), getHeight() / 2);

or
otherComponent->setBounds(comp->getRight(), comp->getY(), 64, comp->getProportionalWidth(64)); // Want the otherComponent to be proportional to comp in height but 64px wide
9

Sorry - don’t like that at all. The method itself is too confusing, and in your usage example, it actually makes the code less readable than it was before, IMHO.

10

In fact, every time you compute an aspect ratio, you’re likely to multiply it by a number to get a proportion (else, why would you need aspect ratio anyway ?)
This means that you always do:
getAspectRatio() * height or getInvAspectRatio() * width

This was to avoid this (a function that compute ar * height or width / ar would save few lines).