Talk:Clamping (graphics)

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computer graphics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

bp 07:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

Are six implementations on top of pseudo-code necessary for such a simple function? SchighSchagh (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there wasn't an 8051 assembler example ... Deleted all but the pseudo-code. Any programmer who can't figure out how to implement the pseudo-code in his/her preferred language shouldn't be programming.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article

Shouldn't this be Clamping (Programming) or something like that? clamp functions certainly aren't restricted to graphics-related use, and most of this article is nothing to do with graphics. 212.44.29.52 (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article 2

I'd go with "Clamping (function misnomers)" or put it under a "List of misused English words".

What's wrong with it ? Well...

1.There is one solitary example given of it's use for the code/functionality specified. This does not qualify it as an industry or subject term, particularly when it is a misnomer. Essentially, one individual working on one (albeit significant) library made a mistake/had an off day and now the entire world is expected to assign a confusing, misleading meaning to an otherwise perfectly good word.

2.The code is so trivial as to not warrant a term.

3.For a function "restricting" a value to a range (which is what the listed code does), "limit","restrict","confine","regulate","constrain","govern" and "restrain" would all be reasonable and intuitive choices. I'm sure there are more. "Clamp" is a very bad choice: it not only does not describe what the function does, it describes something the function does not do (special case excepted).

From a judgement by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (on another topic...obviously): "for a language to remain viable, words must have readily discernible meanings." and here the article's author is trying to assign a meaning at odds with the generally accepted meaning i.e. they are trying to have it relate to a "range" when it properly relates to a fixed point.

The only case for keeping it as a wikipaedia entry at all is to record that the usage suggested is a consequence of a poor choice, currently restricted to one specific area of computing and should not be encouraged to spread further bp 06:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC). To admit it as a legitimate term will encourage its use when it would be better that the library's authors/maintainers recognise their mistake, deprecate the function and refactor with one of the alternative names given above. bp 06:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobpower67 (talk • contribs)