"match" vs "fill' dimensions of a 2D object

Question

Question

I apparently misunderstand the use of "fill" and "match" as used in the situations described in the context below.

I take "fill" to mean "taking up the empty internal volume of something, padding (wall thickness) implicitly taken into account as not available". If there is anything else in the container, "filling" will take up the space that is left (or displace the other object).

"Matching", to me, is more context dependent, and may mean equaling the internal or external dimensions (or both - "a matching set"), or a (part of) a shape. When used for volume, it may still mean internal or external, but no other objects are considered.

I am guessing some part of this is wrong. Which of my assumptions are wrong? Please offer some examples.

Context:

The question regards the terms fill_parent and match_parent (same effect, different names) in Android programming.

[edit] In short: Google have changed the name of the behavior of stretching only in the available space (which is rarely all of it) from fill_parent to match_parent. I don't see why "match" is better than "fill" to describe it.

Consider the following:

The grey area ("glass") is a rectangle with padding on 3 sides. The blue area ("water") is inside the "glass".

If there are other elements in the "glass", asking the "water" to fill/match the "glass" may, depending on other factors, either produce the same result, or take up the remaining space.

Note that in this context, a "child view" can be larger than its parent - it will be clipped or scrolled - the parent can act more like a window than a container.

Many - Google included - insist that "match" is a more appropriate term than "fill". Here is an example of what they may find confusing ("HOW YOU CAN GET TRIPPED UP"). The XML at the end of that answer is for a red rectangle trying to "match" the height of the screen, with 2 other rectangles already there. It produces this:

My opinion: sure, with other elements present it doesn't fill, but neither does it match. In fact, "matching the parent", to me, even more strongly suggests that it should be the same size, than "filling the parent" does. "What Google says, goes" isn't an explanation.

My deleted question on SO has more details, if you're interested. It was asking about layout logic I may have been unaware of. Here, I'm asking about the meaning of words.

The XML for my layout (glass, water)is:

<LinearLayout xmlns:android="http://schemas.android.com/apk/res/android"
    android:id="@+id/glass"
    android:layout_width="match_parent"
    android:layout_height="match_parent"
    android:paddingBottom="30dip"
    android:paddingLeft="30dip"
    android:paddingRight="30dip"
    android:background="#B0B0B0">
    <View
        android:id="@+id/water"
        android:layout_width="match_parent"
        android:layout_height="match_parent"
        android:background="#9090F8" />
</LinearLayout>

Chat link here.

Answer 1

Here is the design intent of fill_parent and match_parent, taken from your link:

Special value for the height or width requested by a View. FILL_PARENT means that the view wants to be as big as its parent, minus the parent's padding, if any.

Special value for the height or width requested by a View. MATCH_PARENT means that the view wants to be as big as its parent, minus the parent's padding, if any.

Note that the design intent is identical, all the way down to the value assigned in each case (a value of -1).

The gist of your question is:

I don't see why "match" is better than "fill" to describe it.

Fill is a term that has an established use in computer graphics:

In graphics applications, to paint the inside of an enclosed object. - webopedia

Based on this established meaning, the term FILL_PARENT sounds as if the intent is to paint the parent object, when the actual intent has nothing to do with operations on the parent. It's therefore a bad choice of words for the identifier.

On the other hand, MATCH_PARENT has the natural English meaning related to copying (but not changing) properties about the parent object, which is much closer to the design intent for that term (an excellent match for it, if you'd excuse the pun):

Match verb [with object] Be equal to (something) in quality or strength - ODO

tl;dr - FILL_PARENT implies an operation on the parent whereas MATCH_PARENT implies changing the child to resemble the parent in some way (the measurements that are to match are specified in the first quote of this answer). Since the intent is to modify the child rather than the parent, MATCH_PARENT is more suitable than FILL_PARENT.

Answer 2

You understanding seems to be confused due to a lack of connection with the geometry involved; fill here is suggestive of colouring in, rather than filling with water. You are referring to a 2d plane, the rectangle; thus it is an area and not a volume. The padding is also a two dimensional addition to the box-plane, created by the padding rules, however they were programmed.

Filling, in this context can be rather misleading, as we will easily associate this with filling a glass, as you have done; Between the 3d realm and the 2d plane however, it is quite a different thing to fill. We fill an area, think of the paint bucket tool in many graphics programs.

Now we come to match, in this particular example, to my mind, match is referring to the actual vectors of the shape, which exist in only one dimension, length is a one dimensional object as is width also; they exist each in their own dimension perpendicular to each other. When matched they are set as equal, this it is a boolean question, the response to which is either yes or no, due tho the restriction in dimension; Match can be used also in many other situations, such as a game of tennis; We could also correctly call this a tennis match; as two competitors are matched against each other. Now returning to 'fill'; Fill does not peak of the vectors that are the parents dimensions, it is a simply order that the dumb program fill until any boundary match is made; no matter what the actual vector value is.

A child may grow to be taller than their parents; Never the less their genetic code will still be a match. Two lovers my make a very good match also though this is not the most romantic of descriptions.

Your two rectangles are perfectly matched in width and height; A match made in heaven perhaps? In the cloud? Or, just in a mobile phone ...

Answer 3

I think Iain's answer is very apposite in pointing out the difference between 2D and 3D objects.

Also, having read the two articles on the Android SO that you have linked to, it seems to me that the very reason that Google are deprecating the term fill_parent in favour of match_parent is because of the very mis-understanding between the two terms that you have identified.

In other words, as I read it, Google agree with you that fill is often understood to to mean "taking up the empty internal volume"; and that if there is anything else in the container, "filling will take up the space that is left". There they are replacing it by match to avoid that confusion.