Split Personality User Controls.
-
User controls in UWP and WPF have a top, left, width and height; and an implied angle of zero degrees. So I can move them around by altering the top, left coordinates with code at run time. My user controls have "facings": front (top), back (bottom), left, right. I get to "face" them in different directions by rotating them around a center point. Rotating the controls has NO effect on the original coordinates (though the "visual" rotates), so I have to calculate (matrix transform) the rotated coordinates myself for collision detection etc.; and reference the original coordinates when I want to move. In effect, I almost wind up working with 2 controls at the same time; with only the center points in common. My OCD question is: what would you call the "first" user control versus the second, rotated one? I'm at "actual" and "visual" but not quite satisfied.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
User controls in UWP and WPF have a top, left, width and height; and an implied angle of zero degrees. So I can move them around by altering the top, left coordinates with code at run time. My user controls have "facings": front (top), back (bottom), left, right. I get to "face" them in different directions by rotating them around a center point. Rotating the controls has NO effect on the original coordinates (though the "visual" rotates), so I have to calculate (matrix transform) the rotated coordinates myself for collision detection etc.; and reference the original coordinates when I want to move. In effect, I almost wind up working with 2 controls at the same time; with only the center points in common. My OCD question is: what would you call the "first" user control versus the second, rotated one? I'm at "actual" and "visual" but not quite satisfied.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
It's a "terminology" question.
Quote:
The body of terms used with a particular technical application in a subject of study, profession, etc. "the terminology of semiotics"
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
It's a "terminology" question.
Quote:
The body of terms used with a particular technical application in a subject of study, profession, etc. "the terminology of semiotics"
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
User controls in UWP and WPF have a top, left, width and height; and an implied angle of zero degrees. So I can move them around by altering the top, left coordinates with code at run time. My user controls have "facings": front (top), back (bottom), left, right. I get to "face" them in different directions by rotating them around a center point. Rotating the controls has NO effect on the original coordinates (though the "visual" rotates), so I have to calculate (matrix transform) the rotated coordinates myself for collision detection etc.; and reference the original coordinates when I want to move. In effect, I almost wind up working with 2 controls at the same time; with only the center points in common. My OCD question is: what would you call the "first" user control versus the second, rotated one? I'm at "actual" and "visual" but not quite satisfied.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
Jekyl and Hyde?
-
User controls in UWP and WPF have a top, left, width and height; and an implied angle of zero degrees. So I can move them around by altering the top, left coordinates with code at run time. My user controls have "facings": front (top), back (bottom), left, right. I get to "face" them in different directions by rotating them around a center point. Rotating the controls has NO effect on the original coordinates (though the "visual" rotates), so I have to calculate (matrix transform) the rotated coordinates myself for collision detection etc.; and reference the original coordinates when I want to move. In effect, I almost wind up working with 2 controls at the same time; with only the center points in common. My OCD question is: what would you call the "first" user control versus the second, rotated one? I'm at "actual" and "visual" but not quite satisfied.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
User controls in UWP and WPF have a top, left, width and height; and an implied angle of zero degrees. So I can move them around by altering the top, left coordinates with code at run time. My user controls have "facings": front (top), back (bottom), left, right. I get to "face" them in different directions by rotating them around a center point. Rotating the controls has NO effect on the original coordinates (though the "visual" rotates), so I have to calculate (matrix transform) the rotated coordinates myself for collision detection etc.; and reference the original coordinates when I want to move. In effect, I almost wind up working with 2 controls at the same time; with only the center points in common. My OCD question is: what would you call the "first" user control versus the second, rotated one? I'm at "actual" and "visual" but not quite satisfied.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
Just to add to the confusion: is this 2-D or 3-D? :-D
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Just to add to the confusion: is this 2-D or 3-D? :-D
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Randor wrote:
I think Tom and Jerry are good names.
I'm a Fred, Barney, Wilma, Betty, Pebbles, BamBam, Dino, Hoppy, and Gazoo man myself.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
User controls in UWP and WPF have a top, left, width and height; and an implied angle of zero degrees. So I can move them around by altering the top, left coordinates with code at run time. My user controls have "facings": front (top), back (bottom), left, right. I get to "face" them in different directions by rotating them around a center point. Rotating the controls has NO effect on the original coordinates (though the "visual" rotates), so I have to calculate (matrix transform) the rotated coordinates myself for collision detection etc.; and reference the original coordinates when I want to move. In effect, I almost wind up working with 2 controls at the same time; with only the center points in common. My OCD question is: what would you call the "first" user control versus the second, rotated one? I'm at "actual" and "visual" but not quite satisfied.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
To be honest, I have no idea what you're talking about so I have no idea how to even suggest an answer.
Latest Article:
Create a Digital Ocean Droplet for .NET Core Web API with a real SSL Certificate on a Domain -
User controls in UWP and WPF have a top, left, width and height; and an implied angle of zero degrees. So I can move them around by altering the top, left coordinates with code at run time. My user controls have "facings": front (top), back (bottom), left, right. I get to "face" them in different directions by rotating them around a center point. Rotating the controls has NO effect on the original coordinates (though the "visual" rotates), so I have to calculate (matrix transform) the rotated coordinates myself for collision detection etc.; and reference the original coordinates when I want to move. In effect, I almost wind up working with 2 controls at the same time; with only the center points in common. My OCD question is: what would you call the "first" user control versus the second, rotated one? I'm at "actual" and "visual" but not quite satisfied.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
If it was me, maybe 'orthogonal' and 'transformed' (or 'rotated')
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++
-
User controls in UWP and WPF have a top, left, width and height; and an implied angle of zero degrees. So I can move them around by altering the top, left coordinates with code at run time. My user controls have "facings": front (top), back (bottom), left, right. I get to "face" them in different directions by rotating them around a center point. Rotating the controls has NO effect on the original coordinates (though the "visual" rotates), so I have to calculate (matrix transform) the rotated coordinates myself for collision detection etc.; and reference the original coordinates when I want to move. In effect, I almost wind up working with 2 controls at the same time; with only the center points in common. My OCD question is: what would you call the "first" user control versus the second, rotated one? I'm at "actual" and "visual" but not quite satisfied.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
'Straight' and 'Rotated'.
-
User controls in UWP and WPF have a top, left, width and height; and an implied angle of zero degrees. So I can move them around by altering the top, left coordinates with code at run time. My user controls have "facings": front (top), back (bottom), left, right. I get to "face" them in different directions by rotating them around a center point. Rotating the controls has NO effect on the original coordinates (though the "visual" rotates), so I have to calculate (matrix transform) the rotated coordinates myself for collision detection etc.; and reference the original coordinates when I want to move. In effect, I almost wind up working with 2 controls at the same time; with only the center points in common. My OCD question is: what would you call the "first" user control versus the second, rotated one? I'm at "actual" and "visual" but not quite satisfied.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
User controls in UWP and WPF have a top, left, width and height; and an implied angle of zero degrees. So I can move them around by altering the top, left coordinates with code at run time. My user controls have "facings": front (top), back (bottom), left, right. I get to "face" them in different directions by rotating them around a center point. Rotating the controls has NO effect on the original coordinates (though the "visual" rotates), so I have to calculate (matrix transform) the rotated coordinates myself for collision detection etc.; and reference the original coordinates when I want to move. In effect, I almost wind up working with 2 controls at the same time; with only the center points in common. My OCD question is: what would you call the "first" user control versus the second, rotated one? I'm at "actual" and "visual" but not quite satisfied.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
"Reference" , "Transformed" Below is my "Signature" apologies if offends My sympathies to the SPAM moderator "I once put instant coffee into the microwave and went back in time." - Steven Wright "Shut up and calculate" - apparently N. David Mermin possibly Richard Feynman “I want to sing, I want to cry, I want to laugh. Everything together. And jump and dance. The day has arrived — yippee!” - Desmond Tutu “When the green flag drops the bullshit stops!” "It is cheaper to save the world than it is to ruin it." "I must have had lessons" - Reverend Jim Ignatowski / Christopher Lloyd "Dripping water hollows out stone, not through force, but through persistence." - Ovid, Roman poet Personal Web Page https://mypaltrythoughts.blogspot.com/[^]
-
Randor wrote:
I think Tom and Jerry are good names.
I'm a Fred, Barney, Wilma, Betty, Pebbles, BamBam, Dino, Hoppy, and Gazoo man myself.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Hmmm, Are you referring to 'world' versus 'local' coordinate systems? I think that's the terminology you are looking for.
They "both" have the same coordinate system. Until the control is rotated, everything corresponds. Once you rotate it, the "visual" no longer corresponds to the coordinates of the "actual"; only code can derive it.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
Is the nomenclature for the end user or for you as the implementer? If for you then maybe pure/virtual or absolute/relative works better? If for the end-user then maybe fixed and realitve?
Keep Calm and Carry On
It's for me; coding. One set of methods works on the actual coordinates; another set "shadows" and translates the visual to the actuals required to move it, etc. 2 names (2 ways) to look at the same object. But it's also a "pattern" (IMO); so, it would also be useful in discussing UWP and WPF user control animation: what you see is not what gets coded.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
Just to add to the confusion: is this 2-D or 3-D? :-D
Software Zen:
delete this;2D. 3D would involve different classes and methods and not (uwp/wpf) "user controls" per se.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
If it was me, maybe 'orthogonal' and 'transformed' (or 'rotated')
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++
I though of a "rotated", but it isn't until it is. It has only potential at the start, unless you start rotated.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
'Straight' and 'Rotated'.
Thinking ...
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I