support anti-clockwise arcs #58
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
paf31
reviewed
Jun 20, 2018
| return function(a) { | ||
| return function() { | ||
| ctx.arc(a.x, a.y, a.r, a.start, a.end); | ||
| ctx.arc(a.x, a.y, a.r, a.start, a.end, a.clockwise); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This parameter name seems to be wrong?
Contributor
|
The design used here could be trivially supported by wrapping the So, this is pretty close to being merged. |
Contributor
|
Actually, this PR can no longer be merged as the fork was deleted. |
4 tasks
Contributor
|
Superceded by #83. Also, my |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Some time ago I posted an RFC of sorts (in issue #57) that didn't get any comments. This patch adds support for anti-clockwise arcs very trivially by making an optional parameter mandatory, which is not backwards compatible.
Obviously this isn't a perfect approach but I don't really have the time to design a general system for optional parameters. One easy possibility is to just add a second function which takes a different number of arguments, but that would not align exactly with the JS specification.