From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chong Yidong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: color.el Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:30:07 -0500 Message-ID: <8762sdz468.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: <87sjvjj2mz.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <8762sfv7c6.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <3028FDD10C5A4C1A8BF109BAA0CA773B@us.oracle.com> <877hcvtklr.fsf@catnip.gol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1298309430 26650 80.91.229.12 (21 Feb 2011 17:30:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:30:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Drew Adams , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Miles Bader Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 21 18:30:26 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PrZaZ-0005Bv-IX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 18:30:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41846 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PrZaX-0002ho-GX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:30:21 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46423 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PrZaQ-0002gD-1o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:30:15 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PrZaO-0007Gq-1V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:30:13 -0500 Original-Received: from vm-emlprdomr-03.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.144]:58360) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PrZaM-0007GW-At; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:30:10 -0500 Original-Received: from furball (dhcp128036225081.central.yale.edu [128.36.225.81]) (authenticated bits=0) by vm-emlprdomr-03.its.yale.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p1LHU8Bo027744 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:30:09 -0500 Original-Received: by furball (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 031EC16054E; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:30:07 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <877hcvtklr.fsf@catnip.gol.com> (Miles Bader's message of "Sun, 20 Feb 2011 13:07:12 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 130.132.50.144 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 130.132.50.144 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:136326 Archived-At: Miles Bader writes: >>> Radians seem cleaner; an argument range of 0-360 only seems useful >>> if an interface is primarily user-level (e.g. a spec in a web page >>> or something). >> >> Cleaner than what? than [0,360]? than [0,1]? than both? And why? >> In particular, why would [0,2*pi] be cleaner than [0,1]? > > Actually I was just comparing to 0-360; I agree that 0-1 is probably > the best of them all. Fair enough; let's go with [0,1].